Clear Reiteration: If an ongoing civil suit addresses the property dispute, and the writ petitioner has not disclosed the same, the High Court will decline intervention under Article 226, especially where civil remedies have been invoked; this principle reaffirms existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts dealing with civil vs. writ jurisdiction in property matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/13596/2024 of SOFIKUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0250862024 |
| Date of Registration | 10-05-2024 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Writ Jurisdiction / Property Law |
| Questions of Law | Can High Courts grant writ relief in a property dispute where a civil suit for title is pending? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Order dated July 08, 2022 in WPA No. 10561 of 2022 (coordinate bench; police duty to maintain L&O) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Pendency of civil suit and suppression thereof justifies refusal of relief; police to ensure peace, but civil rights are for trial court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Calcutta High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts while considering writ jurisdiction in property (title/possession) disputes |
| Follows | Order dated July 08, 2022 in WPA No. 10561 of 2022 (police duty to maintain order) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clear reiteration that suppression of pending civil proceedings is an independent ground to refuse writ relief.
- High Courts will not grant writ protection in cases where civil remedies are being or have been pursued.
- The Court’s direction, if at all, will be limited to law and order and not to adjudicate civil rights.
- Lawyers must fully disclose any related or pending civil suits when seeking writ relief in property disputes.
- Failure to make such disclosure will result in summary refusal of relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner’s dispute was civil in nature, already pending before the civil court.
- The suppression of the existence of the civil suit by the petitioner was deemed, in itself, sufficient to deny equitable writ relief.
- The petitioner had already sought and been refused injunctive relief in the civil court, indicating the matter had been fully canvassed there.
- By relying on a prior coordinate bench decision (order dated July 08, 2022 in WPA No. 10561 of 2022), the Court held that the police’s duty is limited to maintaining law and order and preventing breach of peace, not adjudicating civil possession or title.
- Directions to the police were limited to maintaining peace and tranquility in the area, with no further adjudication of rights.
- The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, reaffirming the primacy of civil remedies in such disputes.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted ownership of the shop room in question.
- Alleged forcible occupation and destruction of belongings by private respondents.
- Sought protection of life and property through the writ jurisdiction.
Respondent (State)
- No distinct summary in the judgment except for report submission and representation in court.
Respondent (Private Party)
- Submitted that a title suit regarding the property was already filed by the petitioner before the civil court.
- Pointed out that the trial court had refused the petitioner’s prayer for injunction.
- Asserted that the respondents were always in possession of the property.
Factual Background
The petitioner claimed to be the owner and alleged forcible dispossession from a shop room by the private respondents, who allegedly broke the padlock and destroyed/damaged belongings. The petitioner sought protection of life and property. The private respondent pointed out the pendency of a civil title suit filed by the petitioner for the same property, where an application for injunction had already been refused. The petitioner did not disclose this civil suit in the writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment discusses the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, its limitations where parties have already invoked civil remedies, and clarifies that such jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating disputed civil rights over property that are sub judice before competent civil courts. The Court also references its prior directions in similar situations, focusing on police responsibility to maintain law and order, not property adjudication.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations announced; the Court reemphasized the existing need for full disclosure of parallel civil litigation in writ proceedings and reaffirmed police duty as limited to maintaining law and order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirmed approach that High Courts do not intervene in civil disputes relating to property when civil proceedings are pending, particularly in cases of non-disclosure.