Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 38837 (CAL)

HEMANTA MUKHERJEE v. ARUP RATAN MUDI AND OTHERS

CO/2883/2026 · 2026-09-01

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Sl.17 01.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2883 of 2026 Hemanta Mukherjee -versus- Arup Ratan Mudi & Ors. Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra ..for the petitioner Mr. Ayan Banerjee Mr. Ajeyo Chowdhury ..for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated 24th July, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 87 of 2025. By the order impugned the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the defendants/opposite parties have encroached upon a portion of the property of the petitioner for which the local investigation by a commissioner is necessary. After going through the plaint this Court finds that this is a simpliciter suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. After going through the averments made in the plaint this Court finds that the petitioner has alleged that the opposite parties have started construction after encroaching the eastern part of the ‘A’ schedule property forcibly. However, no prayer for recovery of 2 possession has been made. That apart, the portion which is alleged to have been encroached upon has not been specifically depicted by way of a sketch map appended to the plaint or by way of describing the encroached portion. After going through the point of local investigation it appears to this Court that the petitioner sought to fish out evidence by way of local investigation which is not permissible. The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. The learned trial judge is requested to dispose of the interlocutory application as well as the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. With the above observations, C.O. 2883 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)