D/L- 21 20/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2829 of 2026 Alamgir Biswas & Ors. Vs. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata & Ors. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Samim Ahammed Mr. Arka Maiti Md. Nasirul Haque Ms. Reshma Khatun Ms. Shreya Das ….for the petitioners Mr. Kishore Dutta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Snehasish Sen Mr. Avishek Banerjee Mr. Biswarop Ghosh Mr. Debdatta Mukhopadhyay ….for the Port Trust This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an unauthorised occupant under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971, and is directed against an order being no. 75 dated August 18, 2026 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta. By the order impugned a date was fixed for hearing of the application for condonation of delay and the prayer for an interim order of stay was refused. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that no notice was served upon the petitioners in the proceedings under Section 4A of the 1971 Act. He further submits that when an attempt was made to disconnect the water supply and electricity connection at the premises in question, the petitioners 2 came to know of an eviction order passed under Section 5 of the 1971 Act. He submits that immediately after coming to know of the said order, an appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 34 of 2026 has been filed before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta. He submits that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation if the starting point of limitation is taken to be the date when the water supply connection and the electricity connection was attempted to be disconnected and in the event, the starting point of limitation is taken up from the date of passing the order, there was a delay of more than 100 days in preferring the appeal. By way of abundant caution, the petitioners filed an application praying for condonation of delay in preferring the said appeal. He submits that pending consideration of the application for condonation of delay the petitioners are entitled to an interim protection. Mr. Dutta, learned senior advocate, representing the authorities of the Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port, Kolkata, refers the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Bandi Vs. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. reported at (2013) 12 SCC 631 in support of his contention that the Court should be very reluctant in condoning the delay caused in filing an application under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. He submits that there has been an inordinate delay in preferring the said appeal and for such reasons the petitioners are not entitled to any interim protection. 3 Mr. Dutta further submits that the submissions made by Mr. Bhattacharyya as to the reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal is not reflected in the application for condonation of delay. Heard the learned senior advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. The Estate Officer passed the order of eviction under Section 5 of the 1971 Act on February 23, 2026. It is not in dispute that an application for condonation of delay has been filed to condone the delay in preferring the Miscellaneous Appeal No.34 of 2026. Since the application is pending before the learned Judge of the Appellate Court, this Court refrains from making any observation on the merits of the said application and the same is left open for the Appellate Court to decide by passing an order upon hearing the respective parties. The question that arises for consideration is whether under such circumstances the petitioners are entitled to an interim protection. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the property in question, though, according to the Port Trust, they are in unauthorised occupation of the public premises. The petitioners have approached the Appellate Court by filing an appeal challenging the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer and the application for condonation of delay is pending consideration before the learned Judge of the Appellate Court. 4 This Court is of the considered view that pending consideration of the prayer for condonation of delay, if the petitioners are not granted an interim protection, the appeal as well as the application filed before the learned Judge of the Appellate Court would become infructuous as in the meantime, the petitioners may be dispossessed by executing the order of eviction. For such reason this Court is inclined to grant an interim protection for a limited period. From the impugned order it appears that September 7, 2026 is fixed for hearing of the application for condonation of delay. At this stage, Mr. Dutta, learned senior appearing for the Port Trust submits that though the written objection to the application for condonation of delay has already been filed but since the stay application has not yet been served upon the Port Trust, no written objection thereto has been filed by the opposite parties. Record reveals that the application for stay has been annexed to the copy of civil revisional application at pages 60-67 of this civil revisional application and since a copy of the civil revisional application has already been served upon the opposite parties, there would not be any necessity to serve a copy of the said civil revisional application upon the opposite parties again. In the light of the submissions made by the learned senior advocates for the respective parties, CO 2829 of 2026 stands disposed of with the following directions:- 5 (i) If the written objections to the application for condonation of delay and the application for stay have not been filed, the same shall be filed on or before August 31, 2026. Replies thereto, if any, be filed by the petitioners on or before September 2, 2026. (ii) The learned Judge of the Appellate Court is requested to take up the hearing of the application for condonation of delay on September 7, 2026 and dispose of the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties as expeditiously as possible. (iii) If for any reason whatsoever the hearing of the said applications could not be completed on September 7, 2026, the learned Chief Judge shall fix a short date of hearing of such application and shall make an endeavour to dispose of the applications for condonation of delay on or before September 15, 2026. (iv) Depending on the fate of the application for condonation of delay, the learned Chief Judge shall take up the hearing of the stay application and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 6 (v) There shall be an order of stay of operation of the order dated February 23, 2026 passed by the Estate Officer in Proceedings No.2182 of 2025 till the disposal of the application for condonation of delay. (vi) In the event the application for condonation of delay is decided in favour of the petitioners, it will be open to the petitioners to pray for an interim order and if such a prayer is made the learned Chief Judge shall consider the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. At this stage, Mr. Dutta, learned senior advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that only a few of the unauthorised occupants have challenged the order of the Estate Officer in Miscellaneous Appeal No.34 of 2026. It is, however, made clear that this order shall be effective insofar as the petitioners of this civil revisional application are concerned. Before parting, it is made clear that the observations made hereinbefore are only for purpose of supporting the ultimate conclusions and the learned Chief Judge shall be free to decide the application for condonation of delay and the stay application without being swayed by the aforesaid observations and all points are left open to be decided by the learned Chief Judge. There will be no order as to costs. 7 All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)