Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 43866 (CAL)

GITANGSHU BANDOPADHYAY ALIAS GITANGSU BANERJEE v. PROVABATI BANERJEE ALIAS BANDOPADHYAY AND ORS

CO/3294/2026 · 2026-09-25

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. 6 (265719) 25.09.2026 (AD 30) (S. Banerjee) CO 3294 of 2026 Gitangshu Bandopadhyay @ Gitangsu Banerjee Vs. Smt. Provabati Banerjee @ Bandopadhyay & Ors. Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated August 19, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 4 of 2020. By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioner for examination of the Advocate Commissioner who has conducted an investigation and submitted a report, stood rejected. Pursuant to an order passed under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code a local inspection was conducted by the learned Advocate Commissioner and she submitted her report before the learned trial judge on September 5, 2023. The learned trial judge specifically recorded that after filing of such report hearing of the injunction application was conducted and only at the belated stage of argument of the suit, the petitioner has come 2 up with an application for praying for examination of the learned Advocate Commissioner. Considering the fact that the Advocate Commissioner submitted her report on September 5, 2023 and the application for examination of the Commissioner was filed sometime in the month of January, 2026, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial judge. Accordingly, this revisional application stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)