Court No. 6 (265719) 02.07.2026 (AD 9) (S. Banerjee) CO 2048 of 2026 Krishna Chandra Saha Vs. Babu Chandra Saha & Ors. Mr. Arijit Bhowmick Ms. Debasree Dhamali Ms. Debasree Mukherjee …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the 3rd defendant and is directed against the order dated November 12, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bidhannagar in Title Suit No. 35 of 2002. By the order impugned, the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code stood allowed. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application for effecting repairs of the suit premises and in connection with such application the plaintiff/opposite-party filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code for holding local inspection. He further submits that the application for repairs was subsequently not pressed by the 3rd defendant. He thus submits that after withdrawal of the application for repairs there was no necessity for the learned trial judge to direct holding 2 of local inspection. He further submits that on an earlier occasion a local inspection was also held. After going through the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court finds that it is the specific case made out by the plaintiff that during continuance of the order of injunction the 3rd defendant in violation of the said order and without obtaining any order from the learned trial judge, thoroughly repaired and constructed the tenanted building and also broke open the wall of the adjacent shop room which belongs to the plaintiff and connected the staircase to go upstairs of the building by way of a pucca construction. It is further stated in the said application that in order to cover up the illegal act, the 3rd defendant filed an application for repairs but practically the entire repairing and reconstruction work have already been completed and there is no work left as mentioned in the schedule of repairs. At this stage it would be relevant to take note of the conduct of the 3rd defendant that the 3rd defendant after filing an application for repairs, has not pressed such application. In view of the peculiar fact situation this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial judge was perfectly justified in allowing the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3 This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, CO 2048 of 2026 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)