Item No.03 30.07.2026 Court. No. 08 Sandip CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI C.O. 108 of 2026 Kishorilal Agarwal VS Homco Engineering Works Private Limited & Anr. Mr. Nabankur Paul, Mr. Nikhil Mohpal, Mr. Ankur Agarwal … for the Petitioner. Mr. Deborshi Dhar … for the Opposite Party No. 2. 1. The instant civil revisional application has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging inter alia, the inaction and delay on the part of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri, in not refunding a sum of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- along with accrued interest which was deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the learned Trial Court dated 22.8.2014 passed in Title Suit No. 17 of 2003. 2. Apropos the facts of the case : a. The petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 17 of 2003 before the learned 2 Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri. b. The learned civil judge (Senior Division), Siliguri vide judgment dated 30.7.2014 directed the petitioner to deposit a balance consideration money of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- and to be invested in a short term interest bearing fixed deposit scheme in any nationalized bank. c. In compliance thereof, the petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- on 28.08.2014 through challan being No. 417 dated 22.08.2014 to the State Bank of India, Siliguri Main Branch as evident from annexure ‘B’ to the revisional application. d. Thereafter an Appeal has been preferred being FA 344 of 2014 against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2014 passed by the civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri in Title Suit No. 17 of 2003 wherein the learned Registrar General was directed to return the amount of 3 1,15,000,00/- deposited by the petitioner on 22.08.2014 through chalan No. 417 to the SBI, Siliguri along with the accrued interest by a demand draft to be drawn in his name upon proper identification within two weeks from the date of communication of this order by either of the parties. e. The petitioner thereafter preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court on 31.03.2023 being (Civil) Diary No. 33932 of 2023 challenging inter alia, the judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 which was subsequently withdrawn by the plaintiff/petitioner. f. An application dated 30.1.2024 was filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court praying inter alia, for refund of the said amount along with accrued interest as directed by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 31st March 2023. g. By an order dated 27.08.2025 the learned Civil Judge (Senior 4 Division), Siliguri directed Sheristadar and Accountant to file a report with regard to the release and return of the said amount. h. Pursuant to such direction the Sheristadar/Accountant filed a report 3.4.2025 and 25.03.2025 which are respectively reproduced below :- “I beg to report that the plaintiff of this suit has deposited the some of Rs. 1,15,000,00/- through challan being no. 417 dated 22.08.2014 to the SBI Siliguri which was deposited on 28.08.2014. Later, vide another order of Hon’ble High Court it was directed upon the Ld. Registrar General to return the same amount with accrued interest. Thereafter, plaintiff preferred SLP before Hon’ble Superim Court which was later withdrawn by the plaintiff.” With due respect I beg to report that, The defendant deposit the amount Rs. 1,15,00000/- via challan no 417. Dt. 22.08.2014. I pray before your Honour kindly pass necessary order to release the said amount in favour of the plaintiff.” i. A further application was filed on 04.04.2025 praying inter alia, to call for a report from the Sheristadar regarding the fixed 5 deposit. However, there has been no compliance of the order dated 28.10.2024 and no steps have been taken for refund. 3. Aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner has preferred the present revisonal application. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- was deposited on 28.8.2014 pursuant to the direction of the learned Trial Judge, and the amount has been lying in deposit for more than 11 years. 5. Despite repeated applications before the Trial Court, including those dated 30.1.2024 and 04.04.2025 and also the order dated 5.3.2025, the Trial Court has failed to pass any order for release. 6. That there is non-compliance on the part of the Sheristadar and Accountant of the Trial Court with regard to the order dated 28.10.24. 7. That the continued retention of the amount causes grave prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. 6 8. Thus the petitioner is entitled to refund of the principal amount along with interest. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and upon perusing the materials on record including the orders passed in connection with Title Suit No. 17 of 2003 this Court finds, that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- on 22.8.2014 vide challan no. 417 dated 22.8.2014 in the State Bank of India, Siliguri Main Branch pursuant to the order of the learned Trial Judge dated 22.8.2014. 10. It is also evident from the records that the learned Trial Court by an order dated 5.3.2025 directed the Sheristadar and Accountant to file a report. However, there has been no progress and no compliance of the order dated 28.10.2024. 11. Keeping the amount in deposit for a period exceeding 11 years without any adjudication of the suit causes undue hardship and prejudice to the petitioner. The balance of equities and 7 the end of justice demands that the petitioner be refunded the amount at this stage. 12. Accordingly this court is of the view that a prima facie case for interference has been made out and the revisional application deserves to be allowed. 13. In view of the above discussions and for the reasons stated herein above, the Civil Revisional application CO No. 108 of 2026 is allowed with the following directions; The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguir, is directed peremptorily to take necessary steps to refund the principal amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- along with accrued interest @ 8% per annum from the date of deposit that is 22.8.2014 to the petitioner/plaintiff within a period of 4 weeks from the date communication of this order. 14. The Advocate-on-record appearing for the petitioner is directed to take necessary steps to communicate this order to the opposite party no. 1. 8 15. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri within 48 hours from date. 16. With the above observations and directions, the revisional application is allowed and disposed of. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Smita Das De, J.)