SRI AMAR NATH AGARWAL Vs. DR. KANCHAN DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is at the instance of the Defendant and is directed against the Order No. 28 dated May 6, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court, 5th Bench, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 90 of 2007 thereby refusing to recall or modify the order dated November 10, 2010 passed by the learned Judge.

(2.) The Plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Ejectment Suit No. 90 of 2007 against the Petitioner for recovery of possession of the premises in suit as described in the plaint on the ground of reasonable requirement. The Defendant / Petitioner herein is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. The Plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for inspection of his residential premises to show the extent of his present accommodation. That application was allowed on contest. Subsequently, the Defendant / tenant filed an application for recall or modification of the order of inspection contending that the Plaintiff did not disclose a portion of another accommodation under his occupation and such property should be inspected to know the extent of accommodation of the Plaintiff. That prayer for recall or modification was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

(3.) Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.