Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 32831 (CAL)

SANJIB SAHA v. SHILA DEVI AND ORS

CO/2313/2026 · 2026-08-04

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Item- 42. sg 04-08-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2313 of 2026 Sanjib Saha Versus Shila Devi & Ors. [ Mr. Indranath Mukherjee …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgment debtor and is directed against an order being no. 128 dated 17th December, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court Barrackpore. By the impugned order, the application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code filed in Connection with a misc. case under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that though the decree was passed in respect of the two rooms but the petitioner is, in fact, in possession of one room and the said room is situated beyond the description mentioned in the plaint of the said suit. He, thus, submits that in order to ascertain exact location of the property wherein the petitioner is in possession by running a tea stall, the local inspection is to be held. From the schedule of property as mentioned in the decree it appears that two pucca rooms situated on the ground floor in a part of holding nos. 96 and 97. Arobinda Road within P.O. & P.S. Naihati, under Naihati Muncipality and in the district of North 24 Parganas, was the subject matter of the decree and the same is butted and bounded by the property of the plaintiff on the Northern and Eastern sides. It 2 is well-settled that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree and is bound by the decree. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court Barrackpore was right in holding that the decreetal property has been sufficiently described in the decree by providing the holding number with specific boundary and there is no necessity to conduct any local inspection to indentify the same. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the civil revisional application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)