Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.31 dated August 18, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Ranaghat in Title Suit No.20 of 2000 thereby rejecting an application for local inspection filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) THE plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted the said title suit no.20 of 2000 for declaration and injunction. THE defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations contained in the plaint. THE suit was at the stage of hearing argument after close of evidence on behalf of both the sides. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application for holding local inspection on the points as mentioned in the application appearing as annexure A to the application. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff has filed the said suit contending, inter alia, that the suit property originally belonged to one Probodh Chandra Bandopadhyay, since deceased and upon his death, his wife, daughters and four sons inherited the said property. The wife and the daughters gifted their shares in favour of the four sons and thus, the said four sons became the full owners of the property in suit. In fact, one deed of partition was executed amongst the four sons on July 29, 1982 and it was a registered deed of partition specifying the shares of the four sons of Probodh Chandra Bandopadhyay. The contention is that the defendant no.1 had raised certain construction on the common passage. Mr. Jha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.1, has submitted that the alleged construction had been made after partition and that too on taking sanctioned plan from the Municipality. He has also contended that such construction had not affected the rights of the parties with regard to the suit property.
(3.) MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Municipality, has submitted that the concerned Municipality had sanctioned the construction and that if any violation of the sanctioned plan is made, appropriate remedy lies before the concerned tribunal and the civil court has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter. The question if the suit is maintainable or not shall be decided by the learned Trial judge and not by this revisional Court. Evidence was adduced on behalf of both the sides in respect of their contentions in the suit. After close of the evidence, the plaintiff wanted to hold inspection on the points, such as, whether the defendant no.1 had constructed a projected varanda over the common passage and towards the South of the varanda of the room of the defendant no.1, if the defendant had made any brick works to make a wall towards east of the said projected varanda and if the defendant had raised a pillar below the projected varanda, and so on. The parties knew their respective stands with regard to the suit property and they have adduced evidence according to their contentions. Evidence of both the parties has been closed.;