Authority: Calcutta High Court (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 01 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner/plaintiff Mou Ghosh vs. M/s. Jaiswal Brothers & Ors.; opposite party No.3 is Smt. Jayanti Ghosh.
  • Background: Title Suit No. 2398 of 2022 (Mou Ghosh Vs. M/s. Jaiswal Brothers & Ors.) was filed for a decree of declaration and injunction to obtain ownership/lessee rights over a flat on the third floor of premises No. B/19K/H/37, Goa Bagan Street, Kolkata‑700006 (approximately 450 sq ft). The suit was transferred to Bench‑II of the City Civil Court, Calcutta.
  • Compromise Decree: On 21 March 2023 an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was filed; the suit was decreed on compromise on 3 April 2023 after witness examination. Execution of the compromise decree gave the petitioner possession of the flat on 19 March 2025 with police assistance (Misc. Case 3988 of 2023).
  • Subsequent Dispute: On 27 March 2025 Smt. Jayanti Ghosh filed an application titled “Complete travesty of justice” seeking leave to set aside the compromise decree, alleging fraud. The Chief Judge of the City Civil Court called for the suit records on 27 March 2025 and on 3 April 2025 issued Order No. 11 directing immediate restoration of possession to Smt. Jayanti Ghosh and her family, to be effected by the Burtolla Police Station within 24 hours, and fixed a hearing for the application under Order 23 Rule 3A on 16 May 2025.
  • Revisional Application: The petitioner filed C.O. No. 1225 of 2025 under Article 227 challenging Order No. 11 dated 03‑04‑2025, arguing that the order was passed without hearing and that the compromise decree was fraudulently obtained because the joint compromise petition bore only the signatures of the plaintiff and Defendant 2 (Chandan Jaiswal), omitting Defendant 1 (Kundan Jaiswal) and Defendant 3 (Smt. Jayanti Ghosh).
  • High Court Findings: The Court observed that the Chief Judge had no jurisdiction to call for records of a suit already disposed of by another court and that the restoration of possession was ordered without a hearing on the pending application. The Court noted that a compromise decree can be challenged only on grounds of fraud, undue influence, coercion, misrepresentation, or mistake, and that the joint compromise petition lacked the required consent of all parties.
  • Procedural History: The Coordinate Bench had earlier (13 June 2025) directed status‑quo, and on 28 April 2025 accepted the Chief Judge’s explanation, directing parties to maintain status‑quo pending disposal of the application.

Final Outcome

  • Order No. 11 dated 03‑04‑2025 is set aside.
  • Possession of the flat shall remain with opposite party No. 3 (Smt. Jayanti Ghosh) until the application under Order 23 Rule 3A is finally disposed of; parties must maintain status‑quo regarding the nature, character and possession of the suit flat.
  • The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta is directed to transmit the trial‑court records to the learned Judge, Bench‑II, City Civil Court, Calcutta immediately.
  • Bench‑II is directed to expedite the hearing and disposal of the application under Order 23 Rule 3A without unnecessary adjournments.
  • C.O. No. 1225 of 2025 is allowed partly without order as to costs; any connected applications are likewise disposed of.
  • The judgment is to be forwarded to the Chief Judge for information and necessary steps, and parties may obtain a certified copy as per standard procedure.

Topics: Legal Revision, Property Possession