D/L- 13 18/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 3165 of 2026 Biplab Ranjan Bose Vs. Dipanjan Basu Mr. Amal Krishna Saha Mr. Souvik Sarkar ….for the petitioner Mr. Debjit Mukherjee Mr. Kaustav Bhattacharya Ms. Priyanka Jana ….for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated August 13, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.18 of 2021. By the order impugned the application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood allowed. Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there has been totally non- application of mind by the learned trial judge while allowing the application for local inspection. He submits that no repairing application has been filed by the opposite party and the learned trial judge allowed the application for local inspection under an impression that such application has been filed in aid of repairing application. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party, in his usual fairness, submits that no repairing application has been filed. He submits that the petitioner in the plaint has specifically admitted that the 2 opposite party is in possession of specific portion on the north-western corner of the first floor of the suit building and the road side flat on the ground floor of the suit building. He submits that the opposite party is being prevented from getting access to the portions which are admittedly under the possession of the opposite party. In reply, Mr. Saha denies and disputes the submission made by Mr. Mukherjee. He submits that the petitioner has not in any manner obstructed the access of the petitioner through the entrance gate of the suit building through which the opposite party has access. After going through the order impugned, this Court finds that the learned trial judge appointed an inspection Commissioner to hold commission work and the same will bring out the real picture of the suit property for repairing the same. In view of the uniform stand of the parties that no repairing application has been filed by either of the parties to the suit, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned as the same is without any basis. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside. At this stage, Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that liberty be given to the opposite party to take out an application for local inspection to bring the real picture before the Court that the access of the opposite party to the portion of the suit building occupied by him is being obstructed by the petitioner by putting padlock on the entrance gate(s). 3 CO 3165 of 2026 stands disposed by setting aside the order impugned and giving liberty to the opposite party to file an appropriate application before the learned trial judge. If such an application is filed, the learned trial judge shall take up the hearing of the said application considering the urgency involved in the said order and make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. The learned trial judge is requested to take up the hearing of the application under Order XXVI Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)