Bm/6 Form No. J(2) District: DARJEELING Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side C.O. 103 of 2026 PRAMILA DEVI PRASAD @ PRAMILA DEVI AND ANR VS THE PRESIDENT, NABANKUR SANGHA SILIGURI Present : The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharyya Mr. Pritam Roy Ms. Silpi Basu ... for the petitioners Mr. Sandip Mandal Mr. Nirmalendu Roy Mr. Subrata Mandal Mr. Jitendra Kumar Poddar Mr. Amit Saha ... for the opposite party Heard on : 03.09.2026 Judgment on : 03.09.2026 Supratim Bhattacharyya , J. 1. Affidavit in opposition has been filed on behalf of the opposite party and affidavit in reply has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Let both the affidavit in opposition and affidavit in reply be kept with the record. 2. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that vide ad-interim order of injunction dated 31.07.2025 the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Siliguri had been pleased to allow the 2 prayer of ad-interim order in the form of status quo and both the parties were directed not to change the nature and character of the suit property. 3. Thereafter on 04.09.2025 at the time of passing temporary injunction the trial Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. 4. Learned counsel further submits that on the 4th day of September, 2025 that is the self same day modification was sought for on behalf of the opposite party/defendant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure but not under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the said Code. 5. Learned counsel stressed upon the issue that in spite of having specific provision of modification in the Code of Civil Procedure laid down, the opposite party/defendant in the Title Suit preferred the application under Section 151 i.e. inherent power of the court. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again emphasised upon the issue that where there is specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, no order under Section 151 need be passed. 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that while modifying the order of injunction on 4th September, 2025 after hearing both the petitioners/plaintiffs and the opposite party/defendant, the learned trial Judge was pleased to pass the following: 3 “ Temporary injunction order dated 04.09.2025 is hereby modified to the effect that “Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the nature, character and possession of the suit property till the disposal of this suit with a permission to celebrate the ensuing Durga Puja in the year 2025 by the defendant club on the suit land by way of erecting Puja Pandal with direction to remove the same immediately after completion of Puja.” 8. The learned counsel has further submitted that on 15.07.026 at the time of hearing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the opposite party/defendant, the learned counsel representing the defendant/opposite party had given an undertaking that the court may appoint a Commissioner to determine as to whether or not the defendant Club has removed the pandal after completion of the Puja at their cost. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge has not dealt with the issue. 9. The learned counsel has further submitted that in spite of an undertaking by the learned counsel representing the opposite party/defendant there has not been any direction as regards to dismantling the temporary construction which is being made for the ensuing Durga puja. The learned counsel representing the petitioner plaintiff seeks an order restraining the Club from organising puja. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the opposite party/defendant placed before the court that a title suit was earlier filed during the year 2002 being Title Suit No.173 of 2002 4 before the self-same court, Civil Judge(Junior Division) Siliguri by the predecessors of the present petitioners plaintiffs. 11. The learned counsel has further placed that the said Title Suit being 173 of 2002 was ultimately dismissed for default vide order dated 04.10.2005. He has further submitted that from the order sheet which has been annexed to the affidavit in opposition it will transpire that since the year 2002 and prior to that this club i.e. Nabankur Sangha being the opposite party herein has been organising Durga Puja in the suit property. 12. Learned counsel has further placed before the court an agreement which has been annexed to the affidavit in opposition wherein the predecessors of the plaintiffs/petitioners and the said Club were parties. It was agreed that the Club will organise Durga Puja and other cultural activities in the said property. 13. Relying upon the same the learned counsel has stressed the point that organising Durga puja is not a new one and is continuing since long atleast since the year 2000. 14. Banking upon the same the learned counsel has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. 15. Considered the submission of the learned counsels representing both the petitioners and the opposite party and after perusal of the affidavits, it transpires that prior to this lis i.e. Title Suit No.135 of 2025, an earlier suit being Title Suit No.173 of 2002 was filed by the predecessors of the plaintiffs and the said suit was ultimately dismissed for default and subsequently an 5 agreement between the predecessors of the petitioners/plaintiffs and the Club took place on 16.07.2006 wherein it has been mentioned in the terms and conditions that the Club i.e. the opposite party shall organise Durga Puja in the suit property. 16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it transpires that the opposite party Club is organising Durga puja in the suit property since the year 2000 and during these years temporary structure had been constructed to have the puja. As the opposite party that is the Club is organising Durga Puja since long that is atleast since the year 2000 so this Court is of the view that no interference is required as to the impugned order. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that as regards the dismantling of the temporary structure, an Advocate Commissioner be appointed to look into the fact as to whether the temporary structure which has been constructed or going to be constructed for the ensuing Durga Puja, in the suit property would dismantled or not. 18. The said Advocate Commissioner is to be appointed by the learned Trial Judge on consent of both the sides and if both the sides do not come to consensus as regards to the name of the Advocate Commissioner, then the court shall appoint an Advocate Commissioner. 19. The Advocate Commissioner shall have an inspection of the suit property on the 15th day after completion of the Durga Puja and shall file a report in this regard before the trial court. 6 20. As regards to other details in respect of the commission the learned trial Judge will take further decision. 21. The impugned order is modified to this extent only. 22. The Civil Revision is disposed of. ( Supratim Bhattacharya, J. )