15.09.2026 Ct. No.655 Sl. No. 41 Subadip CO 4415 of 2025 + CAN 1 of 2026 Haridas Thakur Vs. Gokul Sardar & Ors. Mr. Rudraksha Chattopadhyay, Mr. Sudeepto Kumar Basu, Mr. Protip Roy Chowdhury. …for the petitioner Mr. Jayanta Das, Ms. Soumita Ghosh. …for the O.P. Nos. 1-3, 8, 9. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Ms. Bipasha Bhattacharyya. ….for proforma O.P. No. 4-7 1. The instant civil revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 01.11.2025, being Order No. 11, passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit. By the impugned order, upon allowing the petition for vacating the order of ex parte proceedings, the learned Trial Court accepted the written statements filed on behalf of defendant nos. 5, 6 and 7, subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/-. 2. It is not in dispute that the learned Trial Court, while permitting the defendant nos. 5, 6 and 7 to participate in the proceeding and accepting their written statements, imposed a cost of Rs.300/-. The said cost was duly accepted by the plaintiffs. 2 Consequently, the written statements filed by the said defendants were taken on record by the learned Trial Court. 3. Having accepted the cost imposed by the learned Trial Court as a condition for accepting the written statements, the plaintiffs have thereafter approached this Court challenging the very order by which the written statements of defendant nos. 5, 6 and 7 were accepted. The challenge, therefore, appears to be inconsistent with the conduct of the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court. 4. It is evident from the impugned order that the learned Trial Court permitted the said defendants to contest the suit by taking their written statements on record upon payment of cost of Rs.300/-. The imposition of costs was intended to compensate, at least to some extent, the inconvenience or prejudice, if any, occasioned to the plaintiffs by the delay on the part of the said defendants. Once the plaintiffs accepted such cost without protest and allowed the order to be acted upon, they cannot, in my considered view, approbate and reprobate at the same time. 5. The principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate is founded upon fairness and consistency in litigation. A litigant cannot accept a benefit flowing from an order of the Court and, at the same time, challenge the very order from which such benefit or consequence has arisen. In the present case, the 3 plaintiffs accepted the amount of Rs.300/- imposed as cost pursuant to the impugned order, thereby permitting the order to attain its intended effect, namely, acceptance of the written statements filed by defendant nos. 5, 6 and 7. Having accepted the cost, the subsequent challenge to the acceptance of those written statements does not appear to be legally or equitably sustainable. 6. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature. The power is intended to ensure that subordinate Courts and Tribunals act within the bounds of their jurisdiction and exercise their authority in accordance with law. Such jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised merely because another view of the matter is possible or because a party is dissatisfied with a discretionary procedural order passed by the learned Trial Court. Interference is warranted only where the order suffers from jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, gross procedural irregularity, or such other infirmity which calls for exercise of the Court's supervisory jurisdiction. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no material on record demonstrating any illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 01.11.2025, being Order No. 11, passed by the learned Trial Court. No case has, therefore, been made 4 out for interference with the said order in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The instant revisional application is, therefore, dismissed. 9. It further appears from the impugned order and the materials placed before this Court that service of notice has not yet been effected upon the defendant no 4. The learned Trial Court is requested to take all necessary and effective steps for expeditious completion of the service upon the remaining defendants and thereafter proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 10. Consequently, the application being CAN 1 of 2026 also stands dismissed. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)