08.09.2026 Ct. no. 652 D/L.14 Sayan IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) CO/4281/2025 With IA NO: CAN/3/2026 IMRAN ALI SARKAR VS SAKTAB HOSSAIN AND ANR. Mr. Subir Banerjee, Mr. Soumya Kanjilal … for the Plaintiff/Petitioner 1. According to the affidavit-of-service excepting opposite party no 2(i), service is now complete with respect to other opposite parties. 2. None appears for the opposite parties when the matter is called today. 3. Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner is present. 4. Hence the instant civil revision is taken up for hearing and passing order. 5. The petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in Suit No. T.S. 87 of 2022, which he has filed, seeking declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property, which he possesses. The learned Trial Court, being satisfied that the petitioner/plaintiff has been able to prove prima facie case, directed vide its order dated 10.8.2022, the defendants to restrain 2 from creating any disturbance upon the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, for a limited period. 6. Challenging the said order of the learned Trial Court, the opposite party/defendants moved a Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court being Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2022. 7. In Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2022, the learned First Appellate Court has passed an order dated 30.8.2022, which is assailed in the instant revision by the petitioner. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Subir Banerjee, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said order of the learned First Appellate Court dated 31.8.2022 suffers from illegality and material irregularity. He submits that the said order is unsustainable and liable to be set-aside. 9. Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has further submitted that the learned First Appellate Court, without discarding the fact of possession of the petitioner in the suit premises rather accepting the same has modified the learned Trial Court’s order dated 10.8.2022, in the said impugned order. The petitioner says that order of the First Appeal Court as above, is based on erroneous considerations of the records as well as the factual backgrounds of the case. The petitioner has argued that with respect to the suit property the petitioner has been the sole owner and occupier where as the opposite parties have claimed there as a co-sharer 3 share in the said property, which is said to be factually incorrect. 10. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that now the petitioner intends to make repair of the suit premises which is not habitable any further. Therefore, due to the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, dated 31.8.2022, the petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the property in question, has pleaded suffering prejudice upon being restrained by the learned First Appellate Court, to utilise their property in a manner as per their requirement. 11. For the reasons as above, Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks that the impugned order of the learned First Appellate Court dated 31.8.2022 in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2022 may be set-aside and the initial order of the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 87 of 2022 dated 10.8.2022 may be restored. 12. Having heard submissions as above as well as having perused the materials on record before me it is found that with respect to the suit property, the petitioner’s possession has been evident from the records. The suit before the learned Trial Court no. T.S. 87 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner seeking declaration of his title with regard to the said property. Fact as it transpires from the order of the learned First Appellate Court is that, the petitioner, while filing the said suit seeking declaration of his title over the suit property have suppressed existence of a 4 previous partition suit with respect to the self-same property, to which the petitioner himself is a party. 13. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the previous partition suit is not a material fact in relation to the present suit filed by him for declaration of title, which is however, an unacceptable submission. Since, the suit property is the same and the parties have been litigating since prior to filing of the instant suit by the petitioner, the same cannot be discarded to be a material and relevant fact in connection with the present suit. 14. Be that as it may, since it clearly transpires that till now, the petitioner/plaintiff is in occupation of the suit premises concerned, and both the partition suit as well as the title suit as stated above, are now pending for adjudication, before the Courts of appropriate jurisdiction, let therefore, it be directed in variation of the impugned order passed by the learned First Appellate Court that, the parties should henceforth maintain status quo as regards possession in the suit property of the present petitioner/plaintiff. 15. So far as the petitioner’s requirement and repairing of the suit property is concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move before the learned Trial Court in connection with Title Suit No. 87 of 2022 with an appropriate application as regards the same. 16. The learned Trial Court may dispose of the same by exercising its discretion and in accordance with law after granting 5 opportunity of hearing to both parties in the suit. 17. With the instant observation CO 4281 of 2025 is disposed of along with all applications. No order as to costs. 18. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. < (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)