IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK CO/12/2026 SHRI. DEEPAK RANA … PETITIONER VS. SMT. DIPIKA DEVI … RESPONDENT For the petitioner : Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sohini Biswas Heard on : February 18, 2026 Delivered on : February 18, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. 1. Revisional application is directed against order No. 12 dated January 27, 2026 passed in Other Suit No. 126 of 2025. 2. By the impugned order learned Trial Judge allowed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the opposite party as the defendant in the suit. 3. None appears for the opposite party despite service. 4. Records made available to Court demonstrate that, the petitioner as the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the suit property without the due 2 process of law. Petitioner claims to be a bona fide tenant under the opposite party. 5. In such suit, petitioner applied for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By Order No. 6 dated November 28, 2025, learned Judge was pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction directing the opposite party to let the petitioner run his business in the suit property without any hindrance till the disposal of the suit. 6. Opposite party filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Such application was considered and disposed of by the impugned order. 7. By the impugned order, learned Judge, noted that there was allegation against the opposite party regarding violation of the Court’s order and in order to ascertain the degree of such violation and justification of granting police assistance, the application under Order 37 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed. 8. With the deepest of respect, the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 was at the behest of the opposite party who was already under an order of injunction directing the opposite party no to create any hindrance in the business of the petitioner. In such application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioner before this Court took a stand that the opposite party was in fact violating the order of injunction. 3 9. Be that as it may, petitioner before this Court did not seeks appointment of the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, I do not find any ground for the learned Trial Judge to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the reasons stated in the impugned order. 10. In such circumstance, order No. 12 January 27, 2026 is set aside. 11. CO/12/2026 is disposed of, without any order as to costs. (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.)