24.08.2026 Court No. 12 ML 67 August 2026 Sandip MAT 1092 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 M/s. Joy Baba Lokenath Construction & Ors. Vs. Chaitali Mukherjee & Ors. Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Mr. Raja Roy …for the Appellants. Mr. Kaustav Banerjee, Ms. Ria Kundu … for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. Re: CAN 1 of 2026 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. 2. Learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the delay should not be condoned. Only one of the appellants was ill, but the others were not. Affidavit was filed by the said appellant and there was no reason why the appeal could not be preferred in time. 3. We find that there is a delay of 120 days and the appellant no.4 was suffering from ailments. The delay being not inordinate, we are inclined to condone the delay. The explanations are satisfactory. 4. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 5. The appeal is registered. Re : MAT 1092 of 2026 6. The appeal arises out of the order passed in a contempt application being CPAN 1808 of 2025. The contempt application arose out of W.P.A. 20313 of 2025. 7. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the order impugned has seriously affected the interest of the appellants as also the interest of many flat owners who have booked the flats but cannot get the interior work done. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the water and electricity connections are yet to be completed. 8. By the order impugned, Her Lordship has directed the Officer-in-Charge, Dum Dum Police Station to take immediate steps to ensure that no manner of construction should be carried out in the project named Anupama Heights. Such direction was passed by Her Lordship upon holding that, when the writ petition was moved the appellants had contended before Her Lordship that the construction work was complete. Whereas, in the contempt application photographs were annexed which indicated that construction was going on. Under such circumstances, Her Lordship held that false statements were made before the writ court. The appellants were also directed to file their affidavits before Her Lordship. 9. Her Lordship found that a false impression was given to Her Lordship that the construction was complete, but while taking up the contempt application it was detected that the construction was going on. Her Lordship directed that the construction should be stopped immediately and the police authorities should take steps. 2 10. The submissions of Mr. Mukherjee are factual. We are not inclined to go into those at this stage Her Lordship had directed filing of affidavits. All issues can be decided by Her Lordship upon consideration of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the appellants. The order passed in an appeal arising out of a suit shall be looked into by Her Lordship while deciding the contempt application. Under such circumstances, without any perversity in the order of Her Lordship, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. There is already an order of the Regulatory authority restraining the appellants from challenging the nature and character of the property. The order of Her Lordship is interim in nature, and as such, we are not in a position to hold at this stage that, Her Lordship had actually modified the original order passed in the writ petition. 11. In paragraph 5 of the order passed in the writ petition dated September 12, 2025, Her Lordship recorded the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant that the project was already complete and no construction work was going on. On the basis of such submission, the matter was remanded to the regulatory authority for consideration and disposal of the pending proceeding. The regulatory authority was directed to make an endeavour to dispose of the prayers made by the writ petitioners/respondents, at the earliest. 12. Thus, the matter was brought to the notice of Her Lordship that despite such submission having been made before the High Court which led to the disposal of the writ 3 petition upon acceptance of such submissions, construction was going on. We do not think that Her Lordship actually committed any error of law by passing an interim order staying further construction. 13. Her Lordship has not restrained interior works and grant of water and electricity connection. Although the writ petitioners submit that the project is not complete and even interior work cannot be allowed, he himself is in possession of a flat and is residing there. Under such circumstances, the residents or those persons in respect of whom the flats have been handed over can carry out their interior decoration without changing the nature and character of the external construction. 14. The construction, interior work, grant of water and electricity connections shall be subject to final decision of the Regulatory authority and no equity can be claimed. 15. The contempt application is restricted to the issue of violation of the order and misleading the court. 16. The appeal and application stand disposed of. 17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 4