Calcutta High Court
MAT/1524/2026 of UMME HANI AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 7 October 2026
Ct. No.1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE M.A.T. 1524 of 2026 + I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 Umme Hani & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Appearance: Mr. Goutam Banerjee Mr. Samrat Das Ms. Ruma Singh …..Advocates for Appellants
WBCHCA0457602026
Item No.14
Ct. No.1
KS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
M.A.T. 1524 of 2026
+
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026
Umme Hani & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearance:
Mr. Goutam Banerjee
Mr. Samrat Das
Ms. Ruma Singh
…..Advocates for Appellants
Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. G.P.
Mr. Atanu Basu
Ms. Ankana Sarkar
…..Advocates for State
Mr. Rishav Ray
Mr. Debasish Sinha
Ms. Sharmistha Dhar
Mr. Additiya Mukherjee
Mr. S. Majumder
…..Advocates for Respondent No.5
CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
OM NARAYAN RAI, J.
Date: 07.10.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
(Per Court)
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants for quite sometime.
2. It is contended by the Appellants, who are inter se husband and wife, that unknown persons, barged into their residence and looted an amount of Rs.10.73 lakhs in cash and gold worth Rs.17 lakhs 42 thousand. The house is now under lock and key and the keys are with the private Respondent Nos.5 and 6. A civil dispute is pending before the Civil Court between the Appellants and Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Injunction has been declined by the Trial Court.
3. Learned advocate, therefore, prays that this Court should directed the concerned police station to open the residential premises, search out the belongings of the Appellants and deliver to them all the goods that belong to the Appellants, which are inside the house.
4. In the pleadings before us, it is stated that the Appellants are licensees, who are paying license fees to the landlord. The suit preferred by the Appellants is for seeking injunction against the licensee and a declaration of bona fide licensee.
5. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 01.09.2026. The Learned Single Judge has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC
798. We do not find that the impugned order could be branded as being perverse or erroneous.
6. In view of the above, this Appeal is dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Application No. I.A. No.1 of 2026 would not survive and stands rejected.
(OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice