20.08.2026 Court No.655 DL/Item No.–80 [Milan] CO 4497 of 2025 With CAN/1/2026 ASIT MONDAL VS RAGHUNATH KUMAR Mr. Gouranga Manna ….for the Petitioner 1. The petitioner is represented by the learned advocate. 2. The instant revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly, in connection with Title Suit/Case No. 269 of 2021. 3. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit instituted by the plaintiff and, consequently, directed the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the suit property, as more fully described in the schedule to the plaint, within the time stipulated in the said judgment. 4. Upon consideration of the nature of the challenge sought to be raised in the present proceeding, this Court finds that the impugned judgment rendered by a competent Civil Court in exercise of its ordinary civil jurisdiction. The said judgment, therefore, is amenable to challenge before the forum provided by law. The 2 petitioner, instead of availing the appropriate statutory remedy against the decree passed by the learned Trial Court, has chosen to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and is not intended to substitute the ordinary appellate or revisional remedy specifically provided by law. The power of superintendence is to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases where the subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction, has exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction, or has committed a manifest error resulting in grave injustice. Such jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked as an alternative to an appeal where the order or judgment under challenge is otherwise appealable before the competent forum. 6. The present proceeding, therefore, cannot be permitted to operate as a substitute for the statutory remedy available to the petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. In view of the above circumstance, this Court is of the considered view that the present revisional application, as framed and presented, is not maintainable and is not tenable in law. 8. Accordingly, the instant revisional application, being C.O. 4497 of 2025, stands dismissed.. 3 9. Consequently, the application being CAN 1 of 2026, filed in connection with this case is also dismissed. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties after payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)