Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 174 (CAL)

Vora Fasteners Private Limited v. Razia Khatoon

2017-02-14

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. Three miscellaneous appeals were filed by the appellant challenging the initial order for grant of ad interim injunction by the learned Trial Judge in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents and the subsequent extension of such ad interim order from time to time. 2. The first miscellaneous appeal which is directed against the orders dated 28th September, 2016 and 4th November, 2016 is registered as FMAT 1355 of 2016. 3. The first miscellaneous appeal which is directed against an order passed by the learned Trial Judge extending the ad interim order of injunction on 15th November, 2016 is registered as FMAT 49 of 2017. 4. The other first miscellaneous appeal which is directed against an order passed by the learned Trial Judge extending the ad interim order of injunction on 17th January, 2017 is registered as FMAT 81 of 2017. 5. All these three appeals are taken up for hearing for the purpose of their admission under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the plaintiffs/respondents have entered appearance through Mr. Partha Chakraborty, learned advocate, we have heard Mr. Chakraborty also while considering the admissibility of these three appeals. 6. In a suit for declaration and recovery of possession filed by the plaintiffs, initially an ad interim order of injunction was passed by the learned Trial Judge on 28th September, 2016 restraining the defendant/appellant herein from creating any third party interest over the suit property till 4th November, 2016. The said ad interim order of injunction was subsequently extended on 4th November, 2016 vide Order No. 3. Again the said ad interim order of injunction was extended on 15th November, 2016 and lastly on 17th January, 2017. The defendant/appellant has also lodged caveat in connection with the injunction proceeding. However, the dispute as to whether such caveat was lodged before filing of the injunction application by the plaintiffs in the court below or not cannot be resolved as the caveat was lodged on the very same day when the application for ad interim order of injunction was moved and such order was passed. 7. Be that as it may, since the defendant/appellant has already entered appearance in the suit, this Court feels that the injunction matter should be decided on merit by the learned Trial Judge after exchange of affidavits between the parties. 7. Be that as it may, since the defendant/appellant has already entered appearance in the suit, this Court feels that the injunction matter should be decided on merit by the learned Trial Judge after exchange of affidavits between the parties. If, at this stage, without affording any opportunity to file any affidavit to the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction to the defendant/appellant, the instant appeal, which is directed against the ad interim order of injunction, is considered on merit and if the right of the parties even at this stage is considered and discussed by this Court, then certainly, the learned Trial Judge will be influenced by the observations which will be made by this Court in this appeal, while considering the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. As such, this Court feels that justice will be sub-served if opportunity is given to the parties to exchange their affidavits in connection with the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and a time bound schedule is made for disposal of the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and the interim arrangement which is made by the learned Trial Judge by the ad interim order is maintained in the meantime. 8. Accordingly, this Court disposes of all these three appeals by permitting the defendant/appellant to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction in the court below within two weeks from date; reply, if any, be filed by the plaintiffs/respondents within a week thereafter. 9. Learned Trial Judge is requested to make all endeavour to dispose of the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction within a month thereafter. The ad interim order of injunction which was passed by the learned Trial Judge will continue till the disposal of the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. 10. It is made clear that the learned Trial Judge while considering the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction will dispose of the same on its own merit and according to his own wisdom without being influenced by the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge or by the interim arrangement which is made by this Court while disposing of these appeals. 11. All the three appeals are, thus, disposed of with the above observations.