Maran Chandra Saha Vs Gopinath Mondal @ Bablu and Others

Calcutta High Court 12 Sep 2011 C.O. 1394 of 2010 (2011) 09 CAL CK 0063
Bench: Single Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

C.O. 1394 of 2010

Hon'ble Bench

Harish Tandon, J

Advocates

Jiban Ratan Chatterjee and Arnab Das, for the Appellant; Tridip Kumar Sarkar and Buddhadeb Ghosh, for the Respondent

Judgement Text

Translate:

Harish Tandon, J.@mdashThis revisional application is directed against Order dated 5th November 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Sealdah, in Ejectment Suit No. 29 of 2006 by which an application for modification of an order dated 10th November 2006 is rejected.

2. The opposite parties instituted a suit for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

3. In the said suit, the Petitioner filed an application for an order directing the opposite parties to reconnect the supply of electricity.

4. The said application was disposed of on 10th November 2006 by which the Petitioner was permitted to apply before the proper forum for getting the electricity.

5. The trial Court, while passing the said order, made a typographical error in writing the word ''re connection'' instead of the word ''connection''. The tenet of the said order, as it appears to this Court, is that the trial Court permitted the Petitioner to approach the proper forum to get the connection of electricity.

6. The Petitioner sought to vary the said order on the ground that the Electric Supply Corporation never supplied electricity to the Petitioner and as such, there is

C.O. 1394 of 2010

no question on their part to reconnect the supply. Trial Court misconstrued the said application and rejected the same on the premise that it is only a clerical or arithmetical error which is capable of being modified and error, of any other nature, cannot be modified.

7. As indicated above, in a previous order the intention of the trial Court is manifest that the Petitioner was permitted to approach the appropriate forum for the purpose of getting electricity and there was a conscience declination on the part of the Court to pass an order against the opposite parties for supply of electricity.

8. The impugned order, therefore, is not liable to be sustained and is hereby set aside.

9. With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.

10. Urgent photostat certified copy be supplied to the parties, if applied for, on priority basis.

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More