14.09.2026 Item No. 37 Court No.08. S. De 266413 MAT 1218 of 2026 with I.A. No. CAN/1/2026 I.A. No. CAN/2/2026 I.A. No. CAN/3/2026 Giyasuddin Mal & Ors. Vs. Sri Susanta Chowdhury & Ors. Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, Ms. Saheli Mukherjee, Mr. Kiran Mullick, Mr. Ranabeer Halder, Ms. Debjani Chakraborty, …for the appellants. Mr. Samrat Mukherjee, Mr. Sailendra Tiwari, Ms. Muskan Jalan, …for the respondents. Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J. In re : CAN 2 of 2026 1. The applicants were not parties to the proceeding before the learned Single Judge being WPA 27839 of 2023. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated April 19, 2024. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows : “It appears that there is no civil dispute pending regarding the ownership of the property in question. The petitioners only want to repair a boundary wall to protect their property. Let the police authorities provide necessary police picket for the petitioners to repair their damage boundary wall in a span of 2 to 3 days upon payment of 2 necessary charges for such picket. Necessary representation in this regard be made by the petitioners within a week from this date. Even otherwise, the police shall keep a sharp vigil at the locale to maintain peace. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.” 2. The applicants wish to challenge the said order. They have filed an application for condonation of delay, leave to prefer appeal and stay of operation of the impugned order. 3. The instant application is an application for condonation of delay of 801 days in presenting the proposed appeal. Although the delay is substantial, causes shown being sufficient, the delay is condoned. 4. CAN 2 of 2026 is disposed of. In re : CAN 1 of 2026 5. This is an application for leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated April 19, 2024. This application has been made because the applicants were not parties to the writ petition which was disposed of by the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the applicants may have sufficient standing to challenge the order. Hence, we allow this application. 7. CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed. 3 In re : MAT 1218 & CAN 3 of 2026 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned advocate for the appellants says that a wrong statement was made before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the writ petitioners that there is no civil dispute pending regarding ownership of the property in question. In fact, in January 20, 2024, the applicants have filed a civil suit against the present writ petitioners, being T.S. No.58 of 2024, pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division 4th Court at Howrah, claiming declaration of ownership of the concerned property and other consequential reliefs. Under the garb of repairing the concerned boundary wall, the writ petitioners are likely to raise new construction. This is the worry of the applicants. 10. We make it clear that no new construction will be made by the writ petitioners on the basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. If any new construction is made, the applicants would be at liberty to approach learned Trial Judge before whom the civil suit is pending, praying for appropriate relief. Only repair works will be done by the writ petitioners in respect of the concerned boundary wall. Such repair works will not create any special equity in favour of the writ petitioners. 11. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge’s order. In respect of all 4 other civil disputes between the parties pertaining to the property in question, the parties will be at liberty to make an appropriate prayer before the learned Court which is in seisin of Title Suit No.58 of 2024. 12. The appeal being MAT 1218 of 2026 is disposed of along with the application being CAN 3 of 2026, accordingly. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)