Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Tinku Choudhury & Anr vs Smt. Namita Sarkar & Ors on 21 May, 2026
21.05.2026
Ct. No.6
Sl. No.18
skg
C.O. 767 of 2026
Tinku Choudhury & Anr.
Vs.
Smt. Namita Sarkar & Ors.
Mr. Debjit Mukherjee,
Mr. Kaustav Bhattacharya,
Ms. Priyanka Jana,
Ms. Shruti Ararwal,
...for the Petitioners
Mr. Supriyo Chottopadhyay,
Mr. Deborsi Chatterjee,
...for the opposite party no.1
Mr. Shibojyoti Chakraborty,
Ms. Riya Ghosh,
Ms. Debolina Ghosh,
...for the Howrah Zilla Parisad
1.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on
record.
2. This revisional application is directed against an order
dated January 20, 2026 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Jr. Div.) 6th Court at Howrah in Title Suit no.
1545 of 2023 whereby the petitioners’ application under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking
electricity connection at the suit premises, has been
rejected.
3. The opposite party no. 1 has instituted Title Suit no.
1545 of 2023 praying, inter alia, for a decree of
declaration of title as well as the permanent injunction.
In the said suit, the petitioners have been arrayed as
defendants along with others.
2
4. The petitioners filed an application under Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure praying for liberty to take
new electricity connection from WBSEDCL at the
property mentioned in ‘A’ schedule of the plaint.
5. Such application has been rejected by the learned Trial
Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioners have
approached this Court by filing the present revisional
application. Learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has
failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by dismissing
the petitioners’ application on the ground that there is
an order of status quo in respect of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule
property of the plaint, that there is no specific schedule
or description of the property in respect whereof the
defendants intended to take electricity supply and that
project completion certificate as well as occupiers
certificate had not been produced before the learned
Trial Court.
6. The learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party
no.1 submits that the petitioners have raised
construction in violation of the order dated October 9,
2023 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit no.
1545 of 2023 whereby the parties were inter alia,
directed to maintain status quo in respect of ‘A’ and ‘B’
schedule properties as regards measurement, character
and nature thereof.
3
7. It is submitted that the construction done by the
petitioner is unauthorized and as such the learned Trial
Court was justified in refusing to grant the petitioners’
prayer for electricity supply.
8. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective
parties and considered the material on record. It is now
well settled that an order of status quo, of the nature
passed by the learned Trial Court, would not be a
ground for withholding on declining electricity supply to
a party. However, since the learned Trial Court was in
doubt as regards the completion of the construction or
as regards the legality and validity thereof it was open to
the learned Trial Court to call for a report in such regard
from the Howrah Zilla Parisad which has been arrayed
as defendant no. 7 in the suit.
9. Such exercise has not been carried out by the learned
trial Court and the learned Trial Court has simply
dismissed the petitioners’ application under Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure. On such score alone, the
order impugned is set aside.
10. The matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Court
for a fresh decision on merits. The learned Trial Court
shall pass appropriate order upon considering the
application on merits and upon calling for appropriate
report from the defendant no.7 as regards the
4
construction in terms of the sanction plan etc. if
necessary.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the
merits of the respective cases of the parties and all
points are left open to be decided by the learned trial
Court in accordance with law.
12. Since the petition relates to essential supply of
electricity, therefore the learned Trial Court is requested
to expedite hearing of the application and dispose of the
same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within
a period of one month from the next date fixed.
13. With the above observation the present revisional
application being C.O. 767 of 2026 stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with
all requisite formalities.
(Om Narayan Rai, J.)
