AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-
In the instant revision, the petitioners have challenged the following two orders, firstly, an order of the Judge Bench-II, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta dated July 28, 2025 in Ejectment Suit No. 192 of 2016 and secondly, a judgment and order dated September 24, 2025 in Civil Revision Case No. 2 of 2025 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta.
The petitioners’ grievance inter alia is as follows: -
The petitioners are the legal heirs and successors of the original defendants in the Ejectment Suit No. 192 of 2016. That, the petitioners filed four successive prayers in the said suit before the learned Trial Court. Vide the petition dated May 10, 2024, the petitioners/defendants prayed for recall and/or modification of the Court’s order dated July 15, 2023. The order dated July 15, 2023 by the Judge Bench-II, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta was to direct addition of the Administrator General, Government of West Bengal, as a party in place of defendant No. 2 in the said suit. That order was passed by the learned Trial Court by allowing an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) filed by the present opposite party/plaintiff, before the learned Trial Court.
The second application of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court was that under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated February 12, 2021 in which the petitioner/defendant prayed for a direction upon the plaintiffs to restore possession of the defendant tenants in respect of godown/servants’ quarter situated on the ground floor at the rented premises, in its original condition for use and occupation by the said defendants.
The third application by the present petitioners/defendants before the learned Trial Court was that dated June 21, 2025 praying for recall of the Court’s order dated February 19, 2025 directing for amendment of plaint of the plaintiffs in terms of their application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The fourth and last application which was filed by the present petitioners/defendants before the Trial Court is that dated June 21, 2025, in which the petitioners prayed for the relief before the learned Trial Court for removal of roller shutter from over the tenanted portion of the property and other obstructions allegedly put on the entrance door of the suit premises by the plaintiffs/ landlords.
The petitioners are aggrieved that by dint of the impugned order dated July 28, 2025, the Judge Bench-II, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta has dismissed all the four applications of the petitioners as mentioned above. The petitioners say that such order of the learned Trial Court is illegal, improper and without jurisdiction.
The said order of the Judge Bench-II, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta dated July 28, 2025 was challenged by the present petitioners/defendants in a revision before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Civil Revision Case No. 2 of 2025. Such revision has been dismissed by the said Court in the order dated September 24, 2025 which is also impugned in the instant case. According to the present petitioners/defendants, the said order of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta suffers from material irregularity, non-consideration of the relevant facts as well as the provisions of law and thus from gross illegality.
Mr. Anupam Bhattacharya, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners in the instant revision. He submits that construction of roller shutter over the suit premises by the defendants is ipso facto a proof of dispossession of the defendants from the suit property by the plaintiff himself. It is submitted that during pendency of the ejectment suit, such construction which have an effect of dispossession of the defendant who is a bona fide tenant over the suit property tantamount to abuse of the Court’s process. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the Court should have allowed the prayer of the petitioners for immediate removal of the roller shutter and other obstruction from over the suit property, giving free access thereto to the defendant/plaintiffs.
Regarding the order of the Court for adding Administrator General, Government of West Bengal as a party in the suit in place of defendant No. 2, it is submitted that the defendant No. 2 has left behind at the time of his death, his legal heirs and successors who are eligible and desirous to proceed with the ejectment suit as above, in accordance with law. Therefore, such direction of the Court was absolutely unnecessary, unjust and unreasonable. He submits that in the impugned order as above, the learned Trial Court has not considered these factors and, therefore, erroneously dismissed the petitioner’s application dated May 10, 2024 filed before it.
Mr. Bhattacharya has further submitted that during pendency of the ejectment suit, the plaintiff/opposite party has taken steps in order to dispossess the valid tenant from the suit property by unauthorizedly and illegally taking over possession of the godown at the ground floor of the said premises. Therefore, according to him, restoration of possession thereof in favour of the petitioner/ defendants is imperative for the purpose of proper adjudication of the suit. He alleges that by refuting to allow the petitioner’s prayer in his petition dated February 12, 2021, the Court has acted unreasonably and in abuse of the process of law. He further submits that dispossessing the valid tenant from the suit property amounts to final determination of the suit itself for ejectment and the decree which the Court would eventually pass in the said suit would be impossible for execution any further, as the landlord has already taken over possession of the suit property in his favour, though only unauthorizedly.
Further, it has been submitted that the plaintiff/landlord filed his prayer under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Trial Court only motivatedly and with mala fide intention for extending the scope of the suit. He submits that the same is not tenable in the eye of law. He submits further that in the plaint, the plaintiff/opposite party sought for ejectment on the ground of reasonable requirement as well as default by the defendants. However, in its petition under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff sought to add a further ground of nuisance which was not originally there in the plaint. According to the defendants/petitioners, the same tantamounts to expanding the scope of the plaint, which is not permissible in the eye of law. Further, it is submitted that the order of the Court allowing such prayer of the plaintiff/opposite party under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC was passed only ex parte without granting opportunity to the present petitioners/defendants to contest with respect to the said prayer of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants/petitioners are aggrieved with such order of the learned Trial Court allowing the plaintiff’s prayer for amendment of plaint and by filing their petition dated June 21, 2025, the petitioners/defendants sought for recall of the said order. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the Court has misdirected itself and considered erroneously the nature of the amendment petition and found the same to be formal only. Such gross error on part of the learned Trial Court is required to be revised in the instant petition, in view of the attending facts and circumstances, Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted.
Lastly, it has been submitted that the tenants/defendants cannot be restrained to take over and enjoy peaceful vacant possession of the suit property though the plaintiff has tried to do the same by constructing roller shutter over the suit premises and other obstructions creating hindrance as to the free access and possession of the suit property, by the tenants/defendants. This not only amounts to illegal, mala fide act of the plaintiffs but renders the suit to be decided finally without the Court having adjudicated upon the same. Mr. Bhattacharya has submitted that this not only violates the substantive right of the tenant as to the peaceful possession of the suit property but also is an abuse of the process of the Court. All these factors have never been considered by the learned Trial Court in the said impugned order while considering the petitioner’s prayer and application dated June 21, 2025. Hence, therefore, according to him, the said impugned order suffers from impropriety even on this score.
Mr. Bhattacharya refers to the judgment of this Court in Gopal Chandra Ghosh versus Tinkari Ray reported in (2016) 2 CHN 1. The following paragraph thereof is relied on: -
“65.Under such circumstances the action taken by the opposite party/landlord is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rent Act. He did all mischief which amount to gross abuse of process of law and also violative of the order passed by the learned Civil Court. Therefore, it would be the duty of the Court to restore back possession to render justice and to set right grievous wrong. Be it noted that if any dispossession is made by gross abuse of process of Court or in violation of an order passed by a learned Court, it is the duty to restore back possession. It may be at whatever stage of the proceeding, the petitioner who is so dispossessed by unlawful manner and clear violation of Constitutional mandate should be restored back possession.”
The petitioners have also relied on a judgment of Allahabad High Court in Smt. Raj Shri Agarwal @ Ram Shri Agarwal & Anr. versus Sri Sudheer Mohan & Ors. (judgment dated April 25, 2022 in Matters under Article 227 No. 6686 of 2018.
The plaintiff/opposite party is represented in the instant case. Mr.
Tarique Quasimuddin has represented the plaintiff/opposite party. Mr. Quasimuddin has categorically submitted that the first defendant died in the year 2019 and second defendant, her brother died in the year 2022. After death of both the defendants, the legal heirs even if there are any of the said defendants, did not pursue the suit any further. It is submitted that the legal heirs of the original defendants are the permanent residents and citizens of United Kingdom. He submits that those persons do not pursue the suit or protect the suit property, for which a tenant is duty-bound. It is submitted that since after 2019, nobody resided over the suit property. It is submitted further that the suit property is left unguarded and vacant by the defendants/tenants for which the outsiders have free access to the same posing huge threat to the proper maintenance and safety of the suit premises. It is for this reason, Mr. Quasimuddin has submitted that the plaintiffs have been compelled to put on roller shutter and other protective measures to safeguard the property from invasion of the outsiders. The roller shutter was installed in the year 2023.
With reference to the relevant portion of the evidence of the plaintiffs, it has been submitted that the fact as above is an admitted fact in the suit which does never become a threat for petitioner’s rights or possession over the suit property. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have acted absolutely bona fide and participated in the proceedings before the Court by giving evidence and also accepting therein the fact that some steps as above have been taken up by the plaintiffs to safeguard the property itself. It is submitted that challenge as to the impugned order of the learned Trial Court is now infructuous in so far as the plaintiffs have already been examined by the Court, cross-examined and discharged. It is submitted further that the plaintiffs’ actual physical presence in the suit property would automatically render the protective measures taken up so far by the plaintiffs to be removed from there, in order to give free access of the suit property to the defendants/tenants and that the plaintiffs have no mala fide intention to jeopardize the right of possession of the defendants/ tenants over the suit property till the time the Court passes any decree in their favour, if any.
So far as plaintiffs’ application before the learned Trial Court under order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC is concerned and the allegation of the defendants for ex parte consideration thereof by the Court, it is submitted by Mr. Quasimuddin that it would be evident from order of the Court dated April 04, 2022 that copy of the said petition filed by the plaintiff was duly served upon the defendants. Therefore, the allegation of the Court having not granted any opportunity of hearing to the tenants in this respect is only unfounded, Mr. Quasimuddin has submitted.
Mr. Quasimuddin has further informed about the alleged dilatory tactics being undertaken by the defendants in the learned Trial Court in proceeding with the suit, in so far as the said defendants have said not to co-operate with the plaintiff or comply with the Court’s order by duly attending the proceedings to enable the Court to further proceed with the evidence in the case.
Mr. Quasimuddin has referred to an order of the Supreme Court dated May 05, 2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 12190 of 2025 to submit that according to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the suit was to be decided within a period not later than nine months from the said date of order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that such period is over way back the reason therefor being attributable to the lackadaisical attitude of the defendants in proceeding with the suit property. It is submitted that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court may look into all the attending facts and circumstances as above and pass a time-bound direction within which the learned Trial Court may dispose of the suit, without interfering into the impugned orders in the instant civil revision.
The scope of Article 227 and the extent of power and jurisdiction of this Court thereunder has been authoritatively dealt with by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. Versus B. Gurappa Naidu reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 745. Let the following paragraphs from there be quoted –
“31.In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court, nor can it sit in appeal over the correctness of the orders passed by courts and tribunals over which it exercises the power of superintendence under Article 227.
** ** ** ** ** ** **
35.In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows:
a)The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals.
b)It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.
c)The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.”
It could be beneficial for discussion the other judgments of the said Court, relied on by the Supreme Court in Nandi Infrasturcture judgment (supra) –
“This court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, has held:
….the power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. The learned judge clarified if only there is a flagrant abuse of the elementary principles of justice or a manifest error of law patent on the face of the record or an outrageous miscarriage of justice, power of superintendence can be exercised. This is a discretionary power to be exercised by Court and cannot be claimed as a matter or right by a party.
This court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., has held that the power of the High Court in interfering with the order of the Court or Tribunal, would be restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.
This Court in a recent judgment of Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, had an occasion to again deal with the exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and held that, High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction would not act as a Court of First Appeal.”
Hence, it is therefore, a very well-settled proposition of law that sitting in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not to act as an Appellate Court to look into the correctness of the order of the learned Trial Court but only to the legality, propriety, due and appropriate exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court and also any manifest error of law patent on the face of the record and/or outrageous miscarriage of justice.
In a suit of ejectment protection of the suit property is pivotal. It is apparent from the records that the original defendants died in the instant case, in the years 2019 and 2022 respectively. It is also apparent and not disputed that the legal heir and successors of the original defendants are British nationals and permanent residents of the said country. Since after death of the original defendants, none of the legal heirs and successors of them have ever visited the Court to follow the proceedings in the same. In such circumstances, the plaintiff/landlord might have been compelled, for the sake of protection of the suit property, to construct a roller shutter over the suit property. The learned Trial Court having considered all the attending facts and circumstances, have reached to a conclusion that the suit should be proceeded with by rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking restoration of possession. The same amounts to no impropriety or illegality as alleged; rather it is a conscious and considered decision of the learned Trial Court, for which it is not restrained by operation of any law. Rather on the contrary, the prayer made by the defendant petitioners before the learned Trial Court appears to be frivolous in so far as since after 2022, there has not been anyone to reside over or protect the suit property.
Similar is with regard to the order of the learned Trial Court with respect to the petitioner’s prayer seeking setting aside of its earlier order, allowing amendment of plaint by the plaintiffs. Firstly, the record has revealed that the petitioners/defendants cannot be said to have not granted any opportunity in this respect since the copy of the application by the plaintiff filed before the learned Trial Court was duly served upon the defendants. Secondly, that by allowing the application as above, the Trial Court has taken into consideration the incidents which were generated only after filing of the plaint and appeared to the Trial Court as relevant for disposal of the disputed issues before it in the suit. This Court finds no reason to interfere into such order of the learned Trial Court.
There appears to be no patent illegality or manifest error in the impugned orders of the Court. In exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Court is empowered and authorized to go this far without going into the merits as regards correctness of the order of the learned Trial Court. No manifest miscarriage of justice is apparent in so far as it is the plaintiffs in confirmation before the learned Trial Court that no sooner the defendants/tenants would physically come and take possession and charge of the tenanted suit property, the protective measures put up by the petitioners over the said property should be removed.
So far as the order of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court dated September 24, 2025 in Civil Revision No. 2 of 2025 is concerned, there is virtually no serious challenge as to the same by the petitioner in the instant revision. Suffice is to say that the order suffers with no illegality in view of the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shib Shakti Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur versus M/s. Swaraj Developers & Ors. reported in 2003 6 SCC 659. Let is also be mentioned here that in this regard, Mr. Quasimuddin appearing for the opposite parties have argued that both the orders cannot be simultaneously challenged by the petitioner in this case.
Having discussed as above, this Court is therefore, constrained to find that the instant civil revision case is bound to fail. That, the impugned orders dated July 28, 2025 in Ejectment Suit No. 192 of 2016 by Judge Bench-II, Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta and dated September 24, 2025 in Civil Revision Case No. 2 of 2025 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta suffer with no palpable illegality or manifest error of law to warrant interference by this Court.
Hence, the Civil Revision No. CO 3856 of 2025 is dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.