Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1006 (CAL)

Radhika Sood v. Dolly Minhans

2008-11-18

TAPAS KUMAR GIRI

body2008
JUDGMENT:- (1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated July 31, 2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court at Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) in Title Suit No.1597 of 2007. (2.) The fact of the present case is that the opposite party/plaintiff as tenant has filed the above T.S No. 1597 of 2007 against the petitioner/ defendant as landlord for declaration and injunction restraining the defendant and her agents from disturbing the peaceful running of the business and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises. The defendant entered appearance in the said suit and filed the written objection with a plea for grabbing more space by the plaintiff against the injunction application of the plaintiff. The learned Court below after hearing granted an order of interim injunction in the said title suit. (3.) A writ petition being W.P. No.6407 (W) 2008 was moved by the plaintiff to give the plaintiff protection of the police help. This Court was pleased to direct the police to remain restrained from interfering with the possession of the shop room and shall ensure that orders passed by the Civil Court are carried out by the parties. (4.) The plaintiff filed an application before the learned Court for seeking police help. The said application was disposed of ex parte on July 31, 2008. Hence the present application has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the same with liberty to contest in the said application before the learned Court below. (5.) Mr. Anirudha Chatterjee the learned Advocate assisted by Mr. Srijib Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the liberty should be given to the petitioner to contest in the said application after vacating the ex parte order. (6.) Mr. Chatterjee also contended that the defendant has enjoyed the more space than the rented space as per agreement and as such the said ex parte order would effect the petitioners contention and, therefore, an attempt should be given to contest in the said application after vacating the ex parte order. (7.) Mr. S. Basu the learned Advocate apppearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that the ad interim order of injunction was passed in October 8, 2007. (7.) Mr. S. Basu the learned Advocate apppearing on behalf of the opposite party contended that the ad interim order of injunction was passed in October 8, 2007. On the basis of the injunction application filed by the plaintiff in T. S. No. 1597 of 2007 where the learned Court below directed the defendant not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the premises till 15.11.2007 and the same was extended time to time. During the ad interim order of the injunction the defendant with her men forcibly put the padlock on the main gate of the shop room and the same was informed to the P.S. In W. P. No.6407 (W) of 2008 it was directed by this Court upon the police to ensure to carry out the order of the Civil Court by the parties. The plaintiff filed the application dated 09.05.2008 under Section 151 C.P.C. for police help and the copy was served and on 31.07.2008 the learned Court below passed order and the said pad lock was removed on 02.08.2008 from the main gate and the said fact was informed to the P.S. The defendant filed an application dated August 7, 2008 for recalling the order dated 31.07.2008 and the same is pending before the learned Court below. During the pendency of that recalling application the present revisional application is filed and the same was affirmed on 14.08.2008. As such the present revisional application is liable to be dismissed. (8.) Mr. Basu also contended that the Court in its inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. can grant police aid to ensure the effective implementation of the temporary injunction of pending suit for perpetual injunction. In support of the contention Mr. Basu cited a case law reported in AIR 2000 AP 214 (P. Sankar Rao v. B. Susheela). (9.) Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties. (10.) It is admitted that the ad interim order of injunction was passed on October 8, 2007 and directed the defendant not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and the said ad interim order was extended from time to time. The defendant did not deny the fact for putting pad lock on the main entrance of the shop room. The defendant did not deny the service of the copy of the application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant did not deny the fact for putting pad lock on the main entrance of the shop room. The defendant did not deny the service of the copy of the application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The said application was disposed of as ex parte. In this revisional application the petitioner/defendant did not state any ground why the defendant or her Advocate was absent at the time of hearing the said application for recalling the order dated 31.07.2008. The pad lock was removed on 02.08.2008 as per submission of learned Advocate of the opposite party and the said application for recalling is pending before the learned Court below. No cogent ground is placed before this Court for recalling the order dated 31.07.2008. The present revisional application fails and it is dismissed. (11.) C. O. No. 2657 of 2008 is disposed of. (12.) There is no order as to cost.