17.09.2026 Item No. 02 to 04 (DL) Court No. 07 (Samar) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION C.O. 4253 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 Sri Prakash Kumar Maity -Vs- Sri Pabitra Kumar Maity & Ors. With C.O. 3064 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2025 Smt. Shyamali Manna -Vs- Pabitra Kumar Maity & Ors. with C.O. 4118 of 2023 CAN 2 of 2026 Smt. Shyamali Manna -Vs- Sri Pabitra Kumar Maity & Ors. < Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Samaresh Chandra Dhara. …for the petitioner. Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Mrs. Subhra Das, Mr. Sourath Nath Dutt, Mr. Sasosiji Dasgupta, …..for the opposite party No. 1. 1. As these three revisional applications assail different orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit 89 of 2015 and Title Execution Case No. 6 of 2024 between the same parties therefore a common order is being passed in respect thereof. 2. CO 4118 of 2023 has been filed by the defendant no. 1 assailing the order dated 2 September 16, 2023 passed in Title Suit No. 89 of 2015. 3. CO 3064 of 2024 has also been filed by the defendant no. 1 in Title Suit No. 89 of 2015 thereby challenging orders dated October 16, 2023, November 24, 2023, December 11, 2023, February 16, 2024 and April 09, 2024. 4. CO 4253 of 2025 has been filed by the defendant no. 2 in the said suit assailing all the aforesaid orders which have been challenged by the defendant no. 1 by filing CO 4118 of 2023 and CO 3064 of 2024 as already indicated above. 5. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the opposite party no. 1 (hereafter “plaintiff) had instituted Title Suit No. 89 of 2015 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur praying inter alia for decrees of:- i) declaration that the plaintiff had right, title and interest in respect of the property mentioned in ‘Ka’ schedule of the plaint by way of inheritance; ii) declaration that the plaintiff had preferential right to acquire the property mentioned in ‘Ka/1’ schedule of the plaint in terms of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and also for ii) mandatory injunction directing the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to execute and register conveyance in favour of the plaintiff upon payment of market value of the property mentioned in ‘Ka/1’ schedule of the plaint. 3 6. The said suit was decreed in part on October 24, 2017 thereby declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the ‘Ka’ schedule property and granting permanent injunction in respect thereof but holding that the plaintiff had no preferential right to acquire the property described ‘Ka/1’ schedule of the plaint. 7. The plaintiff carried the decree in appeal being FAT 661 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The said appeal was ultimately disposed on April 03, 2021 thereby modifying the impugned decree by holding that the plaintiff has preferential right in respect of Ka/1 schedule property. 8. The Hon’ble Division Bench remanded the matter to the learned Trial Court for determining the market price of the share in respect of the immovable property acquired by the defendant no. 1 by way of gift after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. 9. The appellate order dated April 03, 2021 was assailed by the defendant no. 1 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP No. 11609 of 2021. The same was dismissed by an order dated August 16, 2021. 10. In the mean time, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for determination of the fair market price of the immovable property in question. The defendant no. 1 filed a written 4 objection to the said application asserting that valuation can be determined only by a Court appointed valuation commissioner and not on the on the basis of the valuation rendered by the registry office. 11. On January 20, 2023 the learned Trial Court passed an order recording that the Registrar, Purba Medinipur had reported that “no Government empanel land and property valuars/existence in this office”. By the said order the plaintiff was directed to take steps. 12. Ultimately, on September 16, 2023 an order was passed recording that the defendant had never been directed by the Court to submit any query report obtained from the land/immovable property registry office and it was only the plaintiff who had been directed to take steps for valuation of the suit property through the local registry office. The said order has been challenged by filing CO 4118 of 2023. 13. Subsequently, by an order dated December 11, 2023 the learned Trial Court accepted the valuation report obtained by the plaintiff through E-assessment slip from the office of the ADSR Tamluk and the plaintiff was directed to deposit the consideration amount mentioned in the E- assessment slip according to the direction of this Court passed in FAT 661 of 2017. The plaintiff was also directed to file the draft copy of the deed. 5 14. The plaintiff filed the draft copy of the deed and challan evincing deposit in terms of the order dated December 11, 2023 on February 16, 2024. The matter was thereafter fixed on April 09, 2024. 15. Ultimately on July 03, 2024 the learned Trial Court directed the defendant no. 2 to execute and register a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the Ka/1 schedule suit property within two months from the date of the order. The plaintiff was, thereby, also, granted liberty to put the decree in the execution in accordance with law. A further direction was passed on the office/department to modify the decree accordingly. All the orders starting from October 16, 2023 (being the one which recorded the filing E-assessment slip obtained by the plaintiff from the office of the ADSR Tamluk) to July 03, 2024 have been challenged in CO 3064 of 2024 by the defendant no. 1. 16. Both CO 4118 of 2023 and CO 3064 of 2024 were heard by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on March 10, 2025 when an order of stay of all further proceedings of Title Suit No. 89 of 2015 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Tamluk was passed till the end of month of March, 2025 or until further order whichever is earlier. The said order was extended on July 01, 2025. 17. However, on November 11, 2025 the interim order granted earlier was not extended in view of 6 the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff /opposite party no. 1 that the said party would not take any step before the Executing Court on the next date. 18. It may be recorded that at the time when the undertaking as aforesaid was recorded by this Court, November 14, 2025 was the next date for the matter to be returnable before the learned Executing Court. 19. The order of stay that had been granted earlier but which was not extended later in view of the aforesaid undertaking was thereafter never extended. 20. The Learned Executing Court thus proceeded with the execution and ultimately, on January 20, 2026 an order was passed by the learned Executing Court directing the decree holder to make payment of the registration fees as indicated by the ADSR Chandipur/ESR Purba Medinipur and complete the process of registration by February 07, 2024. The Additional clerk of the said learned Court was authorized to complete the formalities regarding registration of the proposed sale deed on behalf of the learned Court in his official capacity. 21. Subsequently CO 4253 of 2025 that had been filed by the defendant no. 2 was moved before this Court on February 06, 2026 when an order of stay of Title Execution Case No. 06 of 2025 as also of the order directing registration of the deed for a 7 period of six weeks from the date of order or until further orders was passed. 22. In the wake of such fact, the plaintiff took out an application being CAN 2 of 2026 in connection with CO 4253 of 2025 thereby bringing on record the orders passed subsequent to the filing of CO 4253 of 2025 as well a copy of the registered sale deed. By the said application the plaintiff sought recall of the order dated February 06, 2026 passed in CO 4253 of 2025, while asserting that that the conveyance deed had been executed before the CO 4253 of 2025 could even be moved. 23. All the three revisional applications were thereafter heard by this Bench and judgment was reserved. While preparing the judgment the decision taken by the learned Trial Court on July 03, 2024 struck the mind of Court as the same clearly appeared to be one that disposed of the suit finally and hence assumed the character of a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code. Such being the position, the same could not have been interfered with in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 24. However, since the said point was never urged before this Court and the matter had been entertained by the earlier Coordinate Benches as well, the matter has been brought back on board and the parties have been heard on such point. 25. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in his usual fairness 8 submits that indeed, the said decision is in the nature of the decree. 26. Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 1 relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Arati Das Vs. Bharati Sarkar & Ors. reported at AIR 2009 Cal 8 and agrees that the said decision is in the nature of the decree inasmuch as the same has the effect of disposing of the suit. 27. There is no dispute as regards the fact that the decision dated July 03, 2024 whereby the decree passed earlier was directed to be modified is in the real sense a decree which is appealble under Section 96 of the Code in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Smt. Arati Das (supra). 28. Although the plenary constitutional power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India still remains untrammeled by any legislation — the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated time and again that such jurisdiction should not be exercised when an alternative appellate remedy is available before the Civil Courts. To be precise, in the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai vs. Tuticorin Educational Society & Others reported at (2019) 9 SCC 538, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :- 9 “12. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before civil courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which Respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is why, a 3-member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] , pointed out in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 67] that “orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts”. 29. In such view of the matter, it would not be proper for this Court to proceed with these matters any further. However, since the revisional applications filed by the petitioners have been entertained by this Court, it would also not be proper for this Court to leave the petitioners’ in the lurch. This case therefore warrants exercise of inherent powers of this Court in the interest of justice in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & Ors. vs Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur & Ors. reported at (2009) 5 SCC 162 where the Hon’ble Court had observed as follows: “If the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal or a revision application or a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in a given case it, subject to fulfillment of other conditions, could even convert a revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice- versa in exercise of its inherent power. Indisputably, however, for the said purpose, an appropriate case for exercise of such jurisdiction must be made out.” 30. Accordingly this Court passes directions for conversion of CO 3064 of 2024 and CO 4253 of 10 2025 into appeals. Insofar as CO 4118 of 2023 is concerned, the orders challenged therein, being passed prior in point of time than the ultimate decree dated July 03, 2024 all such orders would ultimately stand merged with the ultimate decree and would be assailable before the appellate Court in terms of Section 105(2) of the Code. The department is directed to provide appropriate two separate FAT numbers in respect of CO 3064 of 2024 and CO 4253 of 2025. 31. Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 1 has fairly submitted that the opposite party no. 1 would not proceed with the execution case before the learned Trial Court and would take adjournment on the next day awaiting conversion of the aforesaid two revisional applications in this first appeal in terms of this order. It is also recorded that both the parties have fairly submitted that the revisional applications may be converted to appeals. 32. CO 4118 of 2023 will be treated as disposed of upon having become infructuous. However, for the purpose of convenience and getting all the documents handy, the same would be tagged along with the papers of the converted appeals. The petitioners well cooperate with the department for the purpose of aforesaid conversion. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)