Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Revisionary Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

Order Date: 07‑09‑2026 (Judgment) – Revisional application C.O.1515 of 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Panji Griha Nirman Private Limited & others; Opposite parties: Ayan Sadhukhan & others.
  • Title Suit No. 105 of 2026 was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas, seeking declaration and partition of suit property.
  • On 21‑02‑2026 the opposite parties filed an ex‑parte injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1‑2 CPC, and the Trial Court, noting a caveat (No. 1885 of 2025) unrelated to the suit property, directed the parties to maintain status‑quo.
  • Petitioners alleged that a different caveat (No. 1897 of 2025) filed by them was omitted, depriving them of statutory hearing; they applied on 27‑02‑2026 to recall/vacate the injunction.
  • The Trial Court postponed the hearing; petitioners filed C.O.953 of 2026 in this Court seeking setting aside of the ex‑parte order.
  • This Court directed the Trial Court to hear the recall application forthwith and to consider the record within ten days, citing the Division‑Bench judgment in Sukumar Roy.
  • The Trial Court heard the matter on 06‑04‑2026, and on 23‑04‑2026 rejected the recall, extending the injunction.
  • Petitioners filed the present revisional application (C.O.1515 of 2026), raising maintainability issues under Article 227 and arguing that the order should be reviewed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
  • Extensive submissions were made by both sides, citing numerous precedents (e.g., Sukumar Roy, Chanchal Bhattacharjee, A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai, Gayatri Chetna Foundation, J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., etc.) on procedural review, caveat rights, and the hierarchy of appellate remedies.
  • The Court examined the scope of Order 39 Rule 4, the distinction between procedural review and substantive appeal, and the bar on exercising Article 227 where an alternative appellate remedy under Order 43 Rule 1(r) exists.
  • It concluded that the petitioners’ application falls squarely within Order 39 Rule 4, making the impugned order appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r), and therefore the revisional petition is not maintainable.

Final Outcome

  • The revisional application C.O.1515 of 2026 is dismissed.
  • Petitioners are directed to file an appeal to the appropriate Appellate Court under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC.
  • If the appeal is filed within one week from the date of this order, any limitation delay will be condoned; otherwise, the period during which the revisional application remained pending will be excluded from limitation calculation.
  • No costs are awarded.
  • An urgent certified copy of the judgment may be supplied on request.

Topics: Injunction; Civil Procedure; Article 227