Court No. 6 (265719) 15.09.2026 (AD 11) (S. Banerjee) CO 3106 of 2026 Smt. Pushpita Bhuinya Vs. Sri Amrit Kumar Nanda & Anr. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Souvik Das Mr. Rudranil Das Mr. Abul Mullick …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against order no. 35 dated September 22, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 1st Court at Contai in Title Suit No. 1 of 2022. By the order impugned, the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs/opposite-parties herein, stood allowed. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that both the parties acquired title in respect of specific portions of the suit property by virtue of registered deeds. He submits that a construction was made within the portion acquired by the petitioner vide the registered deeds. He further submits that considering the nature of the dispute a local investigation ought to have been directed with reference to the chain deeds of the parties. 2 The opposite-parties have filed the suit for declaration of the title, permanent injunction and for recovery of possession of Ka-1 schedule property. Opposite-parties allege that Ka-1 schedule property has been encroached upon by the petitioner. Ka, Ka-1 and Kha schedule properties have been described in the plaint and depicted by a hand sketch map appended to the plaint. Opposite-parties sought for survey of Ka, Ka-1 and Kha schedule properties and sabek plot no. 257 upon relayment with the mouza map and to mention the boundary of the said schedule properties. After going through the pleadings of the respective parties this Court finds that there is a boundary dispute and the plaintiffs have prayed that the defendant be not allowed to construct a boundary wall without ascertaining the boundary line. There is also an allegation of encroachment. The boundary dispute and the issue of encroachment cannot be decided without local investigation. For such reason this Court is of the considered view that a local investigation is necessary for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It was not the case of the petitioner before the learned trial judge that chain deeds are to be considered for the purpose of investigation work. The learned trial judge after considering the materials 3 available on record and the dispute involved in the suit, was right in allowing the application for local investigation. Civil Procedure Code provides for adequate remedies in case a person is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commission work. For such reason this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this revisional application stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)