SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) Being unsuccessful in connection with the judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 81 of 2015, by which the learned First Appellate Court reversed the order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 3rd Court in Title Suit No. 12 of 2015, the petitioner has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the First Appellate Court on multi spoked grounds.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the learned First Appellate Court erred in not considering the deed of conveyance dated 19th March of 2007, by which the present petitioner became the owner of the property. Learned Court below failed to appreciate that the contesting opposite parties have miserably failed to show any document which reveals their possession in the suit property. On the contrary, it will be evident that since August 2014, the dealer of HPCL did not carry on the business and no supply was made by the present opposite party No. 2 since August 2014. The learned Court below also erred in ignoring the letter dated 2nd January, 2015. This apart, the police report and the subsequent events since the death of Utpal Sengupta was not considered by the First Appellate Court in its proper perspectives. He also contended that alleged newly created dealership agreement was a product of afterthought and the learned First Appellate Court was totally confused with regard to the status and the nomenclature of the parties of the suit.
(3.) Ventilating his all such grievances he has prayed for vacating the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court at Alipore. As against this, the contesting opposite party No.2 contended that the impugned order is quite unimpeachable because the said Court has considered all the legal aspects and factual aspects in its proper perspectives.;