D/L.22. July 31, 2026. MNS. RVW 52 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 + CAN 2 of 2026 Mojibar Sk @ Seikh Vs. Golam Haider Momin and others Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Chakraborty, Mr. Amal Kumar Banerjee, Advs. …for the review applicant. Mr. N. K. Das, Mr. Jahangir Hossain, Advs. …for the opposite parties. Re: CAN 1 of 2026 (condonation) 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. The present application is for condonation of delay in preferring review application. 3. The supplementary affidavit filed by the review applicant today be kept on record. 4. Upon a composite reading of the supplementary affidavit and the application for condonation of delay, it transpires that as per the averments made therein, when the impugned order was passed on September 24, 2025, the clerk of the learned Advocate appearing for the review applicant at the relevant juncture, who was looking after 2 the matter, missed the list and as such, the review applicant could not represented on the relevant date. Subsequently on December 17, 2025, when the learned Advocate for the petitioner wanted to serve a notice for early hearing on the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party herein, the latter refused to receive such notice and informed the review applicant that the civil revision had previously been disposed of. However, a server copy was obtained and a certified copy was applied for. In the interregnum, the review application was drafted. 5. However, the review applicant resides at a village in the Birbhum District and due to high fever he could not come to Kolkata between 3rd and 5th February, 2026. 6. After recovery, he contacted his Advocate and thereafter the review application was finalized and ultimately filed on February 20, 2026. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argues that the statement made in paragraph 3(a) of the supplementary affidavit, to the effect that a notice was sought to be served on the learned Advocate for the opposite parties, has not been established and is denied. Even thereafter, it is submitted that sufficient explanation for the delay in the interregnum has not been properly explained. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. In a condonation application, day-to-day delay need not be explained in full particulars. However, the entire period of delay has to be properly explained. 3 10. Upon a consideration of the application for condonation of delay and the supplementary affidavit thereto, the Court is satisfied that sufficient plausible explanation has been furnished for the delay in preferring the review application, in the light of the narrative above. Moreover, no mala fides can be attributed to the review applicant for the said delay. 11. Thus, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby condoning the delay in preferring RVW 52 of 2026. 12. There will be no order as to costs. Re: RVW 52 of 2026 13. In support of the review application, learned counsel for the review applicant submits that in paragraph no. 6 of the said order dated September 24, 2025 passed in CO No. 342 of 2024 along with CAN 1 of 2024, this Court had observed that in the absence of any specific challenge to the identity of the suit property, since the defendants/petitioners submit that they have not yet filed any written statement in the suit, there could not have been any occasion for the court to direct such local investigation as prayed for in a suit for declaratory reliefs. Primarily on such premise, the impugned order of the trial court, whereby the application for local investigation was allowed, was set aside on the finding that such investigation was merely for the purpose of fishing out evidence, which is not permissible in law. 4 14. Learned counsel points out that in fact the defendant no. 1 had filed his written statement, which was also annexed the revisional application itself. 15. From the averments in the said written statement, it is clear that the plaint claim, to the effect that a Masjid (mosque) is situated on the suit property and regarding the other description of the suit property, has been denied by the defendant no. 1 in his written statement. 16. By way of the local investigation, what was sought to be identified is the suit property and the features thereof. 17. Thus, it is submitted that very premise of the order under review was erroneous, since this Court overlooked the nature of dispute raised in the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1/ revisionist petitioner. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that the local investigation application was filed for fishing out of evidence. 19. Learned counsel takes the Court through the reliefs claimed in the plaint, which, accordingly to counsel, merely pertain to a declaration in respect of the suit property being a mosque and ancillary reliefs. 20. Thus, it is argued that for such declaration, the local investigation sought by the plaintiff was not necessary. 21. Upon a thorough perusal of the materials before this Court, I find that there is an error apparent on the face of the order passed by me on September 24, 2025 in CO No. 342 of 2024, inasmuch as the very premise of the order was that the local investigation sought was an endeavour 5 to fish out evidence in the teeth of there being no dispute to the identity of the suit property. 22. However, such finding is belied by the averments made in the written statement of the defendant no. 1 / revisionist petitioner, from which it is evident that the defendant no. 1 has disputed the very nature of the suit property as a mosque, while denying the averments made in the plaint. 23. Thus, the local investigation sought by the plaintiff was germane for adjudicating the suit, despite there being no boundary dispute as such, since the very features and character of the suit property have been denied by the defendant no. 1. In fact, a commissioner’s report in that respect would furnish the best evidence to ascertain the facts vis-à-vis the dispute in the suit. 24. Hence, RVW 52 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby recalling and reviewing the order dated September 24, 2025 passed in CO No. 342 of 2024 along with CAN 1 of 2024 and dismissing the said revisional application, thereby affirming the impugned order, bearing Order no. 22 dated December 5, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Rampurhat, District- Birbhum, in Title Suit No. 130 of 2022, whereby the local investigation sought by the plaintiff/review applicant was allowed. 25. It is expected that the learned Trial Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. 6 26. Consequentially, CAN 2 of 2026 is also disposed of. 27. There will be no order as to costs. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)