Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 795 (CAL)

Jitendra Mohan Saha v. State of W. B.

2009-10-28

SANJIB BANERJEE

body2009
Judgment 1. This is another of the matters where a vague order of status quo has resulted in a proliferation of judicial proceedings. 2. In Misc. Appeal No. 424 of 2009 the District Judge at Alipore passed an exparte ad interim order on August 26, 2009, the operative part whereof reads as follows: "Having heard and perused the annexed documents, I am of the view that the appellant has been able to establish a strong prima facie case in favour of interim order and delay in granting the relief is likely to defeat the object of the petition. In the circumstances, interim injunction is granted for a limited period till 26.10.2009 (Puja Vacation intervening) in the form of status quo to be maintained by both the parties in respect of the suit property on condition that the appellant shall comply with the provisions of clauses (a) & (b) of the proviso to Rule (3) of Order 39 of CPC." 3. The petitioner claims to carry on business at a shop on Rashbehari Avenue. The petitioner says that he held negotiations with the fifth respondent to constitute a partnership to run the shop, subject to the fifth respondent investing substantial sums of money in the business and liquidating the dues of the petitioner's business. It is the petitioner's case that the private respondent did not honour his commitment following which disputes arose. The petitioner complained to the police that the petitioner had been cheated by the private respondent. The petitioner claims to have intimated the private respondent that the partnership had been dissolved. The private respondent instituted Title Suit No. 1417 of 2009 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court at Alipore. On the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the private respondent's plaint was rejected. 4. The petitioner claims that upon the private respondent seeking to create disturbance at the shop, the petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 2597 of 2009 before the same Court in Alipore. The Trial Court refused an ad interim interlocutory order that the petitioner sought, whereupon the matter was carried in appeal. The Appellate Court made the vague order of status quo which, according to the petitioner, has been continued subsequently. 5. The Trial Court refused an ad interim interlocutory order that the petitioner sought, whereupon the matter was carried in appeal. The Appellate Court made the vague order of status quo which, according to the petitioner, has been continued subsequently. 5. It is the petitioner's present grievance that notwithstanding such order and the petitioner's complaints to the police authorities, the police have not taken appropriate measures to implement the order and afford the petitioner the protection due thereunder. 6. It is alarming that in a number of matters judicial officers tend to pass unreasoned orders of status quo without specifying the status that is directed to be preserved. Often times these result in a flurry of judicial proceedings. There can be no more disservice to the parties and to the institution than a vague order of status quo that results in multiplicity of proceedings in an already docket-fatigued and clogged system. A reference may be made to the decision reported at 2006(3) SCC 312 (Kishore Kumar Khaitan vs. Pravin Kumar Singh) where the Highest Court of the land opined that it would be inappropriate to pass an order directing the parties to maintain status quo "without indicating what the status quo was." 7. The petitioner herein seeks to interpret the unspecified order of status quo to his advantage and claims that the police authorities have not paid heed to his entreaties to preserve his possession of the premises and his right to carryon uninterrupted business thereat. 8. The vague and unspecified order of status quo in this case has resulted in the police machinery to be disturbed and other unpleasant consequences. A petition has now been carried to this Court on the strength of the order, the complaint now deflected from the defendant in the suit to the State and its apparent failure to ensure the compliance of a judicial order. 9. Since the order of status quo of August 26, 2009 is unclear to this Court, the police authorities can hardly be blamed for disregarding (assuming that they merely paid no heed to the matter and without entering into the possible other undesirable effects of the complaint) the petitioner's request to implement the order. 10. 9. Since the order of status quo of August 26, 2009 is unclear to this Court, the police authorities can hardly be blamed for disregarding (assuming that they merely paid no heed to the matter and without entering into the possible other undesirable effects of the complaint) the petitioner's request to implement the order. 10. The petitioner must be left free to approach the Civil Court to elaborate on the status that it desired to be preserved before any grievance founded on the vague order can be permitted to be canvassed against the police authorities. Since this is not the appellate or revisional forum from the order which the petitioner cites, it may be out of place for any further observation to be made. 11. W.P. No. 17310 (W) of 2009 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent certified Photostat copies of this order be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Writ application dismissed.