Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Goutam Surana And Another vs Maa Jasoda Rice Mill Private Limited And ... on 11 November, 2019
1 S/l.
7. Bpg November 11, 2019 In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction C.O. No.1766 of 2019 Goutam Surana and another Versus Maa Jasoda Rice Mill Private Limited and another Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Mr. Pramit Bag, Mr. Debabrata Das, Mr. D. Pal.
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaydeep Kar, Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Mr. Aritra Basu, Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Mr. Abhik Chitta Kundu.
...for the opposite party no.2.
This revisional application is directed against an order whereby the appellate court refused to pass ad interim order of injunction at the instance of the petitioners on the ground that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was pending for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that there was extreme urgency involved, since the assets-in-question were being 2 sought to be sold out at an undervalued rate, which is much below the rate which was assessed by the relevant authorities, as annexed to the instant revisional application.
Such contentions are controverted on behalf of the opposite party no.1.
Learned senior counsel further argues that in a previous revisional application a valuation was directed by a valuer appointed by this Court, who arrived at a valuation of Rs.6,02,90,000/- , taking which into account, the injunction application as well as the suit itself were directed by a coordinate Bench of this court to be disposed of peremptorily and mandatorily within four months from the date of that order, that is from November 19, 2018.
It appears that, despite several efforts, no prospective buyers could be obtained by the petitioners during pendency of this revisional application at this stage, who is willing to purchase the property at a higher price. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the matter, it appears that the appellate court was justified in refusing injunction, simply because no extreme urgency was made out by the petitioners for the grant of injunction during pendency of an application for condonation of delay.
However, the aforesaid observations are not a commentary on the merits of the matter at all.
3
The purpose of justice would be sub-served if the previous order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, directing the injunction application as well as the suit to be heard out expeditiously, is adhered to by the trial court.
It is submitted by both sides that the injunction application has already been disposed of.
Accordingly, C.O. No.1766 of 2019 is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order, but directing the trial court to dispose of Title Suit No.525 of 2017 pending in the said court, that is, the Second Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat, District-North 24 Parganas positively within one working month from the date of communication of this order to the court below. It is made clear that the said order is peremptory and the trial court shall make full endeavour to adhere strictly to the time-frame stipulated herein.
Miscellaneous Appeal No.72 of 2019 pending before the District Judge at Barasat, District-North 24 Pargans, accordingly, is deemed to stand disposed of in view of this order.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )