Court No. 6 (265719) 08.07.2026 (AD 6) (S. Banerjee) CO 2062 of 2026 Ranjan Roy Vs. Sukumar Roy & Ors. Mr. Asit Baran Raut Mr. Tuhin Subhra Raut Ms. Ishita Raut …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no. 2 challenging the orders dated April 17, 2025 and February 10, 2026 both passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Sealdah in Title Suit No. 134 of 2020. By the order dated April 17, 2025, the petitioner was directed to produce the sanction plan on a particular day. Being aggrieved by such order the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for recall of the said order. Such application stood rejected by the order dated February 10, 2026. Mr. Raut, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of a well demarcated portion having a separate holding number. He submits that the petitioner was carrying on construction work in terms of the 2 sanction plan. He further submits that the sanction plan was produced by the petitioner before the learned Judge of the appellate Court in connection with a misc. appeal arising out of an order of injunction. He further submits that that since the petitioner has produced the sanction plan, there is no necessity for the learned trial judge to again direct production of the sanction plan. After going through the order dated April 17, 2025 this Court finds that the direction for production of the sanction plan was passed in connection with the hearing of an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. After perusal of the materials on record the learned trial judge expressed an opinion that without perusing the sanction plan and without hearing on the point, no effective order can be passed. In the light of the said finding the learned trial judge directed the petitioner to produce the sanction plan. Since it is the case of the petitioner that the sanction plan was produced at one stage of the proceeding, the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced by a direction passed by the learned trial judge to produce the same. Since the learned trial judge has expressed an opinion that production of the sanction plan is necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the 3 dispute, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion by the learned trial judge. Accordingly, CO 2062 of 2026 stands disposed of without interfering with the aforesaid orders. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)