23.07.2026 Item no. 29. Court No.550. AB RVW 13 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2022 In C. O. 631 of 2021 Smt. Sutapa Mukherjee & Anr. Vs Shri Kamal Kumar Mukherjee & Anr. Ms. Kabita Mukherjee, Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Mr. Gourav Das …..for the Review Applicants. Mr. Tapas Kr. Majumdar …..for the Respondents. 1. This review application has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated December 24, 2021, passed in connection with C. O. 631 of 2021. 2. According to Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the review applicants, the said judgment/order has contained several errors on the face of the record. Firstly, the observation of the learned Coordinate Bench that no one possesses property of Bankura, is palpably a wrong observation. Secondly, the learned Judge has been pleased to observe that the Partition Commissioner did not visit Bankura for the purpose of commission work, which is not at all correct since in the written objection, the respondent had admitted the visit of Partition Commissioner to the locale at Bankura. The 2 third observation of the learned Coordinate Bench to the effect that the tenanted portion was allotted to the respondents and thereby burdened the respondents with liability, is also not correct. 3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate, has referred to a few judgments in support of his contention such as Malleeswari Vs K. Suguna & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1080 and another decision passed by another Coordinate Bench in RVW 85 of 2016 (Rita Dey Chowdhury nee Nandy Vs Dr. Kalyan Dey Chowdhury), decided on September 15, 2016. 4. Mr. Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, Kamal Kumar Mukherjee, has submitted that the report of the Partition Commissioner contains several anomalies and such report should not be allowed to stand. 5. I have considered the materials on record. It prima facie appears that in a partition suit, each co-sharer can be said to have possessed the undivided property even they are not physically present in the property. On that score, I find that there is an error on the face of the record. 6. Another defect, which is rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioners and agreed by the learned Counsel for the 3 respondent no.1, is that in the written objection of the respondent, Mr. Kamal Kumar Mukherjee had admitted that the learned Partition Commissioner went to Bankura property on the relevant date and time. The Partition Commissioner’s Field Note also discloses that Mr. Kamal Kumar Mukherjee and the Partition Commissioner were present at the Bankura Property on the relevant date. However, it appears that there is no signature on the part of the petitioners or their representatives in the Field Note of the Partition Commissioner. Therefore, the absence of the petitioners during partition commission work at Bankura, as pointed out by Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate, cannot be ruled out. 7. The third alleged defect, that the respondent was burdened with the liability for evicting the tenant from the ground floor, is also not correct in the sense that the petitioners have already brought an eviction suit for evicting the tenant from the ground floor of the property at Lansdowne. However, Mr. Mukherjee has fairly submitted that although the petitioners were previously collecting rent from the tenant, the petitioners are ready and willing to disburse the admissible share of the rent to the respondent, 4 subject to adjustment of expenses for maintenance of the property at ground floor at Lansdowne property. However, during hearing, learned Counsel for both the parties have agreed that if a new Partition Commissioner is appointed after setting aside the report of the present Partition Commissioner, they have no objection. However, Mr. Majumdar has submitted that both the parties should bear the cost of partition work in equal share and to which Mr. Mukherjee has also agreed upon. 8. Accordingly, learned Court below shall appoint a new Partition Commissioner on the prayer of either of the parties on the condition that both the parties shall bear the cost of the partition commission work in equal share. 9. Accordingly, RVW 13 of 2022 is disposed of along with CAN 1 of 2022. The report of the Partition Commissioner dated 04.02.2019 is hereby set aside on consent. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) 5