Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 877 (CAL)

Kaisar Ali v. Asgar Ali

2008-08-28

Prasenjit Mandal

body2008
JUDGMENT: 1. THIS application is directed against the order no. 64 dated 07. 12. 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Additional Court at Alipore in Title Suit 2. NO. 88 of 2006 whereby he has rejected the application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. The short fact of the case is that the plaintiff/petitioner filed the Title Suit No. 380 of 2000 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sixth Court at Alipore for injunction against the defendants/opposite parties herein. That suit was transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First additional Court and was renumbered. In that suit, the plaintiff/petitioner prayed for temporary injunction and his petition was disposed of directing both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. But the defendant no. 1/opposite party tried to disturb peaceful possession of the plaintiff/petitioner time and again. Ultimately, he took forcible possession of the suit property. So the plaintiff/petitioner has prayed for restoration of possession. His prayer was rejected on contest without costs by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the plaintiff/petitioner has preferred this application. 3. HAVING considered the submission of the learned Advocate for the plaintiff/petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that there is no ground to interfere at all. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has discussed the matter elaborately and he has noted the fact that the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to establish that he was dispossessed from the suit property on 10. 02. 2006 as alleged. The learned Trial Judge has also observed that the plaintiff/petitioner has failed to establish disturbance of status quo by the defendant/opposite party and that he failed to show that he is entitled to grant any relief of an interim order of mandatory injunction in his favour as prayed for. 4. THIS is not at all an appeal but an application for exercise of power of superintendence by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta over the subordinate judiciary. Upon consideration of all aspects, the learned Civil Judge has come to the said finding. The observation of the learned Trial Judge cannot said to be irregular or without jurisdiction. I, therefore, hold that at present there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order. Upon consideration of all aspects, the learned Civil Judge has come to the said finding. The observation of the learned Trial Judge cannot said to be irregular or without jurisdiction. I, therefore, hold that at present there is no scope to interfere with the impugned order. The matter is old and the suit was at the stage of framing of issues in 2006. I think a direction should be given upon the court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order. Accordingly, the application is disposed of without costs. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Additional court, Alipore is directed to dispose of the Title Suit within six months from the date of communication of this order. 5. IT is recorded that I have not decided anything on merits and that the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced in any way by my above observations. He shall dispose of the suit independently upon consideration of the evidence on record as available.