Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sunil Kumar Bysack vs The President on 12 October, 2018
1 Sl. October
22. 12, 2018 High Court at Calcutta Revisional Jurisdiction C.O. 3680 of 2018 Sunil Kumar Bysack Versus The President, Kamarpara Sporting Club & anr.
Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya, Mr. Anupam Kumar Bhattacharya, Mr. Narendra Prasad Gupta, Mr. Anirban Dey, ...for the petitioner.
Mr. Partha Pratim Ray, Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das, Mr. Ahshan Ahmed, ...for the opposite parties.
The present revisional application has been preferred against an order, whereby the prayer of the defendants/opposite parties to perform Durga Puja on the suit property was allowed.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the suit property belongs to the petitioner and the opposite parties have no locus standi to perform such puja. It is further submitted that no proof was furnished in the court below to show that the opposite parties were in possession of the suit property or were conducting Durga Puja thereon. In such view of 2 the matter, it is submitted, the trial court acted without jurisdiction in granting such permission.
The learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties indicates that the opposite parties had pointed out to the court below that an injunction order had been passed in a previous suit, restraining the defendants/opposite parties from disturbing the petitioner in performing Durga Puja on the suit property. A photocopy of such order is produced in court today, which is taken on record.
When confronted with the query of the court as to such order, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the suit filed by the opposite parties, in connection with which such injunction order was passed, was stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the injunction order could not have any bearing in the present matter.
The last aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner utterly fails to convince this court as to how an order of stay of suit can frustrate a valid injunction order passed by a competent court of law. Rather, the petitioner suppressed the material fact as to the petitioner having been restrained by an order of court from preventing the opposite parties to perform Durga Puja on the suit property. Such suppression itself is sufficient to merit rejection of the revisional application. 3
Moreover, the trial court exercised its judicial discretion in granting the permission to hold Durga Puja on the suit property. Such exercise of discretion was valid and sufficient reasons were given for passing such an order. As such, the impugned order ought not to be interfered with at the drop of a hat, even if a second view was possible in the facts of the case.
Accordingly, the revisional application bearing C.O. 3680 of 2018 is dismissed on contest with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, for suppression of material facts, to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite parties within one working week from this date. dns ( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )