Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Uma Shankar Sha & Ors vs Addya Prosad Pathak & Ors on 25 July, 2014
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
233 25.07.14 C.O. 2297 of 2014
akd
Uma Shankar Sha & Ors.
Vs.
Addya Prosad Pathak & Ors.
--------
Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Mr. Amitava Pain, Mr. Partha Pratim Mukherjee.
... for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudip Kumar Maiti, Mr. Nityagopal Mukherjee.
... for the opposite party no. 1.
This revisional application is directed against the order no. 3 dated 23rd June, 2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 57 of 2014, by which the ad interim order of injunction in the form of status quo with regard to the nature, character and possession of the suit property is passed.
Though several pleas have been taken before this Court on the manner in which the ad interim order of injunction is passed by the Court of Appeal below, but ultimately it is submitted that in the event the application for injunction is disposed of at the earliest, it would sub-serve the justice between the parties.
It is no doubt true that the Court of Appeal below passed the ad interim order of injunction in an application for injunction, which is still pending. The opposite parties are represented and do not oppose to 2 the prayer that the injunction application may be directed to be disposed of at the earliest.
In view of the above, this Court permits the petitioners to file written objection to the said injunction application within two weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter.
It is informed that the next date of hearing of the said injunction application is fixed on 20th August, 2014.
The Court of Appeal below is requested to take up the said application on the date so fixed and shall see that the same is disposed of on the same day. In the event and because of any unavoidable circumstances it cannot be disposed of on the said date, it would make all efforts to dispose of the same within a week thereafter.
However, it is made clear that this order shall not be construed to have any impact on the merit of the said application and the Court of Appeal below shall be free to decide the same without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove.
The revisional application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) 3