Calcutta High Court
Abarna Dutta & Anr vs Dhaval Jain & Ors on 11 August, 2025
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
OD-1 ORDER SHEET CC No. 56 of 2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025 GA/2/2025 ARISING OUT OF WPO No.193 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Civil Jurisdiction [Contempt] ORIGINAL SIDE ABARNA DUTTA & ANR. VERSUS DHAVAL JAIN & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA Date: 11th August, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Ayan Mitra, Adv. ...for Petitioners. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Ayan Kumar Boral, Adv. ...for Applicant in GA/1/2025. Mr. Oishik Chatterjee, Adv. ...for Applicant in GA/2/2025. Mr. Gurudas Mitra, Adv. Ms. Manisha Nath, Adv. ...for KMC. Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty, Adv. ...for Debutter Estate. Re:- GA/1/2025 & GA/2/2025 1.
Both the applications have been filed seeking intervention in the
contempt proceeding. The applicants allege that if the Court interferes
with the order that has been passed by the Special Officer (building),
then the rights of the applicants will be infringed.
2. Learned advocate representing the contemnors submits that the
Executive Engineer dealt with the matter and forwarded the same to the
Special Officer (building) allegedly in compliance of the direction passed
by the Court.
2
3. On the last occasion the Court framed an issue as to whether the
applicants have a right of audience in the contempt proceeding.
4. Judgment delivered by this Court in the matter of Tandon Brothers
Vs. Rajesh Pandey & Anr. reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 10 :
(2008) 2 CHN took note of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court in Nalini Ranjan Das Vs. Anup Singh, reported in
1990 (2) CLJ 190, which clearly laid down that the applicants do not
have any right of participation in the contempt proceeding. The
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the Rules framed by this Court do
not provide for intervention by third parties. The provisions of the Code
of Civil Procedure as to addition of parties do not arise in the contempt
matter which is entirely between the Court and the contemnors.
5. In view of such authoritative pronouncements, the Court is convinced
that no opportunity of hearing can be given to the applicants in the
contempt proceeding. The applications for addition of party accordingly
fail and stand dismissed.
Re:- CC No. 56 of 2025
6. Perused the report filed by the Executive Engineer, Building
Department, Borough-II.
7. It appears that the Executive Engineer has forwarded the entire file to
the Special Officer (Building) to deal with the unauthorized
construction. The Special Officer (Building) has passed an order on 16th
April, 2025. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same.
3
8. The Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ought to approach the
competent forum challenging the said order to test its validity.
9. It does not appear that there has been any wilful or intentional violation
of the order passed by this Court.
10. In view of the above, the contempt petition stands disposed of.
11. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the competent forum for
appropriate relief, if so advised.
12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties, upon compliance of all legal formalities.
(AMRITA SINHA, J.)
nm