Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The Karmapa Charitable Trust & Ors vs State Of Sikkim & Ors on 14 March, 2014
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
57 14.03.14 C.O. 762 of 2014
akd
The Karmapa Charitable Trust & Ors.
Vs.
State of Sikkim & Ors.
--------
Mr. S. P. Mukherjee, Ms. Deboleena Mukherjee.
... for the petitioners.
The Suit was taken off from a Court in the State of Sikkim to a Court at Darjeeling within the State of West Bengal. The dispute pertains to a Monastery situated at East District of Sikkim. The parties carried the matter to the Supreme Court, where a direction was made for carrying out the repair works in presence of the local commissioner.
The Apex Court expressly indicated in the said order that the same shall not be construed to have permitted the appellant therein to carry out any demolition work or new construction in the building in question and should be restricted to the essential repairs to be carried out in presence of the local commissioner. The commissioner was further directed to submit a report to the Trial Court with regard to the exact nature of the repairs carried out by the appellant before the Supreme Court.
The parties could not arrive at the consensus over the name of the local commissioner. However, the plaintiff as well as the defendant no. 3 suggested certain names and the Court picked up the name of the present local commissioner, who happens to be 2 the Architect, Urban Development & Housing Department, Government of Sikkim.
The petitioners took out an application before the Trial Court making allegations against the said local commissioner and prayed for an order to appoint another local commissioner. The Court did not find that the allegations are at all sustainable. It further appears that the commissioner has not submitted the report as yet, which logically infers that the essential repairs have not been carried out finally.
The apprehension of the petitioners that they may be prevented from entering into the Monastery as well as the State of Sikkim, which is the subject matter of the said Suit, appears to this Court unfounded. Furthermore the same cannot be the ground for removal of the local commissioner appointed by the Court.
This Court, therefore, does not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. All the apprehensions as portrayed before this Court, in my considered opinion, have been taken care of in the order passed by the Supreme Court and, therefore, this Court does not intend to make any observation and/or comment thereupon.
The revisional application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) 3