Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 841 (CAL)

Maa Vaishno Developer v. State of West Bengal

2013-11-22

SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI, SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE

body2013
JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, learned advocate, appears for the respondent nos.1 to 5. 2. Mr. Mainak Bose, learned advocate, appears for the respondent nos.6 and 7. 3. Although the matter is appearing under the heading application, by consent of Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 5 and Mr. Mainak Bose, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.6 and 7, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing by treating the same as on days list. All formalities are dispensed with. 4. There is, admittedly, a private dispute between the writ petitioners and the respondent nos.6 and 7. 5. A civil suit is pending. In the civil suit, an ex parte ad-interim order of injunction was obtained restraining both the parties from changing the status quo as regards possession and nature and character in relation to the property-in-suit. 6. This was an appellable order, but the defendants, who are the writ petitioners, could not approach the appeal court because of annual vacation of the civil courts. 7. A civil revisional application being Civil Order no. 3773 of 2013 was moved, which was disposed of by Harish Tandon, J. on October 28, 2013 modifying the said interim order. The defendants, that is the writ petitioners, were restrained by an order of injunction not to create any third party interest and not to enter into any agreement for sale of the suit property during the pendency of the application for temporary injunction. The order directing maintenance of status quo as regards nature and character was modified. 8. On the allegation that the police is not rendering assistance to the writ petitioners pertaining to construction at the property, this writ petition was filed. 9. The Hon'ble Single Judge, by the order impugned, in our view, rightly refused to entertain the writ petition. However, the police was directed not to interfere with the matter pertaining to the construction at the property without a specific direction of an appropriate forum in this regard. 10. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have come up with the appeal. 11. The Hon'ble Single Judge, by the order impugned, in our view, rightly refused to entertain the writ petition. However, the police was directed not to interfere with the matter pertaining to the construction at the property without a specific direction of an appropriate forum in this regard. 10. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have come up with the appeal. 11. We clarify that, during the pendency of the application for temporary injunction in the court below, it will be open to the writ petitioners to make construction at the property strictly according to the sanctioned building plan granted by the Howrah Municipal Corporation, but they shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or even enter into agreement with any third party in relation to such construction during the pendency of the application for injunction. 12. If the writ petitioners/appellants feel that they are restrained illegally by the plaintiffs, who are the private respondents in the writ petition, from making construction at the property strictly according to the sanctioned building plan, leave is granted to the writ petitioners/appellants to apply and obtain necessary order from the trial court for police help. 13. Since the matter is pending in the civil court and the application for temporary injunction is otherwise ready for hearing, we request the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Howrah, to dispose of such temporary injunction application as expeditiously as possible, but in any event, by March 31, 2014 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 14. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the claim and the counterclaim of the parties and all points for consideration are kept open. 15. The appellants are, however, directed to apply, obtain and file certified copy of the order impugned by three weeks. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal and the application stand disposed of. 17. We make no order as to costs. 18. Let photo stat plain copies of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court, be handed over to the learned advocates for the parties, on their usual undertakings.