25.08.2026 Ct. No. 655 S.L. No.86 AMR CO 4584 of 2025 Sujata Mondal & Anr. -vs- Md. Abdul Ohab Laskar Mr. B. P. Mondal Mr. Sukanta Mondal Ms. Kakali Ghosh …for the plaintiffs/petitioners Mr. Sudharshan Ghosh …for the Defendant/Opposite party 1. Learned Advocate representing the plaintiffs/petitioners is present. 2. Defendant/Opposite party is also represented by the learned Advocate. 3. The instant civil revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Title Suit No. 69 of 2018. 4. It appears from the materials on record that the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was inducted into the suit property as a licensee and, upon termination of such licence, his continued occupation became unauthorised, thereby giving rise to the cause of action for eviction. The 2 defendant entered appearance in the suit and is contesting the same by filing his written statement. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners that, in his written statement, the defendant claimed that his possession over the suit property was founded upon an Agreement for Sale dated 21.11.2003 and, on the strength thereof, he sought to claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on the plea of part performance of the contract. 6. It further appears from the impugned order that, during his cross-examination as PW1, the plaintiff admitted the existence and execution of an Agreement for Sale between the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs and the defendant. Pursuant to such admission, the said Agreement for Sale was produced before the learned Trial Court. It is, however, significant that the defendant has not preferred any counter-claim in the suit seeking any substantive relief on the basis of the said Agreement for Sale in respect of the self-same property. 7. The principal objection raised by the plaintiffs is that the Agreement for Sale dated 21.11.2003 is an unregistered instrument and, according to them, the same cannot be received in evidence for the purpose of claiming protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act unless the requisite stamp duty and penalty are first assessed and paid, and the document is duly dealt with in accordance with law. On the other hand, the defendant 3 seeks to rely upon the said agreement in support of his plea that his possession is referable to part performance of the contract and that such possession is therefore entitled to statutory protection. 8. It is also not in dispute that the trial of the suit has already commenced and the process of recording evidence has been set in motion. In the course of such evidence, the plaintiff himself has admitted the existence of the Agreement for Sale. The defendant, however, has not instituted any counter-claim founded upon the said agreement. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court appears to have considered the document in the context of the pleadings and evidence already brought on record and has declined to interfere with its consideration at this stage. 9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the controversy raised by the parties essentially relates to the evidentiary effect and the permissible use of the Agreement for Sale dated 21.11.2003 in the pending suit. Whether the said document can be relied upon for claiming the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, or whether it can be looked into for any collateral purpose, and whether the document is liable to be impounded and subjected to payment of stamp duty and penalty, are matters which substantially concern the appreciation and admissibility of evidence in the facts of the suit. 4 10. It is equally relevant that the plaintiff has not disputed the execution of the Agreement for Sale. The defendant has also not sought any independent relief by way of counter-claim on the basis of the said agreement. Therefore, at this interlocutory stage, and particularly when the trial has already commenced, this Court, in exercise of its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not be justified in interfering with the impugned order merely because another view may also be possible regarding the evidentiary use of the document. 11. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and is intended to ensure that the subordinate Court acts within the bounds of its jurisdiction and follows the principles of law and procedure. Such jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised for correcting every alleged error in appreciation of evidence or for substituting the view of the High Court for that of the Trial Court, unless the order under challenge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material procedural irregularity resulting in failure of justice. 12. In the present case, having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the admission made by the plaintiff regarding the existence of the Agreement for Sale, the absence of any counter-claim by the defendant founded upon the said agreement, and the fact that the trial has already commenced, this Court does not find any such patent illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity 5 in the impugned order as would warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined to the question of interference with the impugned order in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. The learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to consider, at the appropriate stage and in accordance with law, the precise evidentiary value and permissible purpose for which the Agreement for Sale dated 21.11.2003 may be relied upon, including any question relating to its admissibility, stamping or registration, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no sufficient ground to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The instant revisional application is, accordingly, found to be devoid of merit and is not maintainable in the manner sought. 15. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. 16. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 17. The learned Trial Court is requested to proceed with the suit expeditiously, in accordance with law. 18. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned Trial Court immediately. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)