Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Uttam Das vs Rameswaram Construction & Supply & Anr on 24 November, 2017
1 19. 24.11.2017
mb In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.O. 3295 of 2017 Uttam Das
-Vs.-
Rameswaram Construction & Supply & Anr.
Mr. Sarbesh Pal ...for the petitioner The petitioner in the present revisional application complains that despite being a lawful tenant in respect of a suit premises, the petitioner has been evicted unceremoniously without following due process of law. The petitioner alleges that such unlawful eviction was at the instance of the opposite party no. 1/developer in nexus with the opposite party no. 2/landlord. It appears upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the materials on record, that initially the opposite party no.2/landlord instituted a suit, bearing Title Suit No. 297 of 2016, wherein the present petitioner filed a written statement along with a counter- claim. In such suit, the petitioner took out an application for temporary injunction and had obtained a limited order of status quo in respect of the suit property. However, immediately upon such limited order of status quo having spent its force, the 2 opposite parties allegedly ousted the petitioner from the suit property without taking recourse to due process of law. To cover up such alleged illegal exercise, the opposite party no. 1/developer filed a second suit and obtained therein an ad interim injunction on April 25, 2017 restraining the defendants therein, including the present petitioner, from disturbing the plaintiff's usage of the "A" and "B" Schedule properties in such suit, in any manner. Being thus aggrieved, the present petitioner took recourse to an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating and/or modifying a subsequent extension of such order dated April 25, 2017. The petitioner has also preferred a miscellaneous appeal against such extension order, giving rise to Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2050 of 2017. The petitioner also filed in connection with such miscellaneous appeal, an application for stay of operation of the order impugned therein. By virtue of the impugned order dated August 24, 2017, the petitioner's prayer for ad interim stay has been refused.
It is well settled that the appellate Court, while sitting in judgment over an injunction order cannot generally stay the operation of such impugned order. It is trite that the grant of such stay would tantamount to allowing the appeal itself without hearing the other side. As such, the trial Court committed no 3 error, let alone jurisdictional, in refusing ad interim stay at the behest of the petitioner.
As such, there is no scope to interfere with the order impugned herein. However, in view of the alleged sorry plight of the petitioner, the Additional District Judge, First Court, at Serampore is requested to dispose of the Miscellaneous Appeal no. 2050 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within December 15, 2017. A request is also made by this Court to the learned trial Judge, that is, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court at Serampore to dispose of the interlocutory applications made in connection with Title Suit No. 211 of 2017 as early as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment to either side.
Accordingly, C.O. 3295 of 2017 is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order but in the light of the observations made above.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the petitioner upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)