Calcutta High Court
CO/262/2026 of ABDUR ROUF MOLLA Vs SUNIL KUMAR NASKAR AND ORS. on 18 August 2026
Ct. No. 21 Sl No. 17. ASR CO/262/2026 ABDUR ROUF MOLLA VS SUNIL KUMAR NASKAR AND ORS. Mr. DILIP KUMAR SHYAMAL For the petitioner The learned counsel representing the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order no. 35 dated
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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.
18.8.2026 Ct. No. 21 Sl No. 17. ASR CO/262/2026 ABDUR ROUF MOLLA VS SUNIL KUMAR NASKAR AND ORS.
Mr. DILIP KUMAR SHYAMAL
For the petitioner
The learned counsel representing the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order no. 35 dated 18.12.2025 passed in Title Execution case no. 6 of 2023 arising out of Title Suit no. 58 of 1988 before the court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas.
The petitioner was handed over ‘Khas possession’ on 12.07.2024 by the process server with the help of survey passed Advocate Commissioner.
Thereafter, the petitioner had been possessing the same by cultivating the said land.
It has been alleged by the petitioner that subsequently on 16.08.2024, the petitioner has been dispossessed from the said property and in respect of said property the petitioner sought for handing him back the possession and in this regard an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner.
As per the submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner prayer portion of the application dated 8.9.2025 under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not reflect the actual prayer made by the petitioner instead on perusal of paragraph 10 of the said application, the actual prayer of the petitioner is revealing.
Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner it is shocking to note that the prayer portion of the application does not bear the actual prayer, while it bears something else than the petitioner actually sought for.
The actual prayer can be derived from paragraph 10 of the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code dated 8.9.2025.
Through the impugned order the Executing court has rejected the application made under Section 151 of the CPC, whereby the petitioner has sought for exemption from depositing the cost for police personnel.
From the submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner, it transpires that final decree was passed in the partition suit and as per the final decree possession was handed over to the petitioner by the process server with the help of survey passed Advocate Commissioner on 12.07.2024 and since then the petitioner had been in possession and had been cultivating the said land.
Subsequently, on 16th August, the petitioner is said to have been dispossessed and being dispossessed has prayed for handing over the possession of the said property once again to him and for that the petitioner has sought for police help and accordingly the Superintendent of Police, Baruipur has assessed cost of Rs. 26,425/- (Rupees twenty six thousand four hundred twenty five).
This court is of the view that when the petitioner has sought for restoration of possession with the help of police, the petitioner has to bear the cost of police personnel which has been assessed by the Superintendent of Police, Baruipur police station.
In such circumstance, the prayer sought for through the revisional application is rejected.
The revisional application is disposed of.
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J)