24.08.2026 Court No.655 DL/Item No.–122 [Milan] CO 4536 of 2025 NIKUNJ BIHARI SARKAR BEING DEAD REPRESENTED BY NIRMAL SARKAR & ANR. VS NAMITA BHOWMIK & ORS. Ms. Shohini Chakraborty, Ms. Prajanni Das ….for the Petitioners 1. The petitioners are represented by the learned advocate. 2. None appears on behalf of the opposite parties. 3. The instant revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with O.C. Suit No. 33 of 2018. 4. It appears from the materials on record that, by an order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur, Gangarampur at Buniadpur, in connection with O.C. Suit No. 33 of 2018, the learned Trial Court was directed to undertake an inquiry with regard to the valuation of the suit. The said direction was issued with a view to ascertain the proper valuation of the suit property for the purpose of determination of the jurisdictional and other consequential issues arising in the suit. 2 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the learned Trial Court proceeded with the requisite inquiry and, for the purpose of obtaining an objective and authoritative assessment of the value of the property, directed the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Buniadpur, Dakshin Dinajpur, to submit a report regarding the valuation of the suit property. The property in question is situated at Mouza-Khusipur and relates to L.R. Plot No. 191, measuring an area of 1.69 acres out of the total area of 2.13 acres. The learned Trial Court also fixed a date for submission of the valuation report by the learned Additional District Sub-Registrar, Buniadpur. 6. The impugned order, therefore, has to be considered in the aforesaid factual and procedural background. On a careful consideration of the order impugned, it appears that the learned Trial Court has acted in pursuance of the specific direction issued by the learned Additional District Judge and has adopted a reasonable and appropriate procedure for ascertaining the valuation of the suit property. Calling for a report from the competent registration authority, particularly when the issue relates to the valuation of immovable property, cannot, by itself, be said to be either arbitrary or without jurisdiction. Rather, such an exercise facilitates a proper and objective determination of the issue and enables the Court to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of relevant material instead of proceeding on an uncertain or speculative valuation. 3 7. It is also well settled that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is essentially supervisory in nature. The power is intended to keep the subordinate Courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in accordance with law. Such jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised merely because another view may be possible on the same set of facts or because the superior Court may have adopted a different procedural course. Interference is warranted only where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest perversity, gross dereliction of duty, or a serious failure of justice. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction for reassessing every interlocutory or procedural order passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. In the present case, I do not find that the learned Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted contrary to the direction contained in the order dated 18.11.2025. On the contrary, the impugned order appears to have been passed in furtherance of the said direction and for the limited purpose of obtaining the necessary material concerning the valuation of the suit property. The direction upon the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Buniadpur, to submit a valuation report is neither unreasonable nor prejudicial in such a manner as would justify interference in exercise of the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 4 9. It is further significant that the valuation report is yet to be submitted and, therefore, the process undertaken by the learned Trial Court is still at an interlocutory stage. Any grievance which may arise upon consideration of the valuation report can appropriately be urged before the learned Trial Court at the relevant stage. At this stage, there is no apparent jurisdictional error or perversity in the course adopted by the learned Trial Court warranting intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Upon perusal of the materials available on record and upon considering the nature and scope of the impugned order, I am of the considered view that no material ground has been made out which would justify interference with the impugned order in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, I find no merit in the revisional application. 12. The revisional application, being C.O. 4536 of 2025, is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Let a photocopy of this order be sent down to the learned Trial Court. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties after payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)