Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28234 (CAL)

MADAN CHANDRA MAHATO AND ORS. v. BINOD MAHATO AND ORS.

CO/1569/2026 · 2026-07-10

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Item- 25. sg 10-07-2026 Ct. 6 CO 1569 of 2026 Madan Chandra Mahato & Ors. Versus Binod Mahato & Ors. Mr. Dinendra Nath Chatterjee Mr. Madhusudan Mandal …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the impugned order no. 30 dated 17th April, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raghunathpur, Purulia in Title Case no. 104 of 2022. By the order impugned, the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure fled by the defendants/opposite parties herein stood allowed. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that there was only an incomplete construction made by the opposite parties and the learned Trial Judge, by the impugned order, allowed such incomplete construction to be completed. In support of such contention Mr. Chatterjee places reliance upon the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner. After going through the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, this Court finds that the Commissioner reported upon inspection that a newly constructed building is in existence but the casting of the roof has not yet started. The Commissioner further reported that only the construction of the roof is pending. After considering the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, the learned Trial Judge recorded that construction of a roof over an already constructed house neither changes the character of the suit property, nor it changes possession. It has been further observed in the impugned order that the said construction shall be subject to final outcome of the suit. Since construction upto the roof level was completed, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Judge was right in allowing the opposite party to complete the casting of roof. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. With the above observations, this civil revisional application stands disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 2