25.08.2026 Item No.30 Ct. No. 652 RP CO 4195 OF 2025 AMIT GHOSH VS YUKUB ALI MIRDEE & ORS. Mr. Arik Banerjee Mr. Jit Ray …… For Petitioner 1. The petitioner, who is the defendant no.6 in the partition suit, now pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, 7th Court at Alipore, has challenged the order of the Court dated 27.11.2025, passed in that suit No. TS 805 of 2024. 2. Vide said order the learned trial Court has allowed the prayer of the opposite party/plaintiff for local inspection of the suit property. The opposite party alleged before the learned trial Court, about illegal construction work being made by the defendant no.6 over there. The revisionist/defendant No.6 alleges that the trial Court has passed the impugned order only ex parte, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/defendant no.6. 3. Fact remains that the plaintiffs’ prayer for grant of injunction as regards the suit 2 property to restore its original nature and character and save the suit property from alleged encroachment, was refused by the Court vide order dated 27.06.2024. 4. Misc. Appeal No.229 of 2024 challenging the said order of refusal of injunction to the plaintiffs/opposite parties, has also been dismissed by the learned District Judge dated by an order dated 10.07.2025. 5. It, therefore, becomes evident that the Court has never put any embargo as regards usage of the suit property by one of the co-sharers. The opposite party/ plaintiff has been refused to be granted with an order of injunction over the suit property. There is no record to show that the petitioner’s right as a co-sharer of the suit property has ever been denied or challenged by any of the parties in the suit. 6. In such circumstances, the plaintiff by his application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 25.11.2025 sought for appointment of an advocate commissioner, for holding inspection as to the construction work alleged to have been done by the present petitioner/defendant no.6. 3 7. The record was put up out of turn before the Court. By the impugned order as mentioned above the Court has allowed the petitioner as above filed by the plaintiff/opposite party before it by appointing advocate commissioner for inspection over the suit property without calling the present petitioner/defendant no.6 to raise any objection as regards the said prayer of the plaintiffs/opposite parties. 8. The Court has held in the impugned order that there is an urgency for restoring the nature and character of the suit property indicated during pendency of the suit. That finding of urgency is, however, apparently perverse insofar as the civil Court as well as the Appellate Court has earlier rejected the plaintiffs’ application for grant of injunction with respect to the suit property. 9. In such view of the matter, unnecessary haste committed by the learned trial Court in passing the ex parte order dated 27.11.2025 appears to be improper and its failure to exercise jurisdiction vested under law. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned 4 of the learned trial Court dated 27.11.2025 in TS No.805 of 2024 cannot be sustained. 10. Therefore, the present revisional application is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed in TS No.805 of 2024 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 7th Court at Alipore is set aside. 11. Let the learned trial Court be directed immediately serve notice upon the petitioner/defendant no.6 and hear out the application filed by the plaintiffs before it under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, in presence of both the parties. 12. Let the Court dispose of the said application of the plaintiffs after hearing both the parties as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Court does not find any necessity to direct for service of notice and the same is waived. 14. The revisional application is, thus, disposed of. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned 5 advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)