Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Prk Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Manojit Mitra on 4 February, 2019

Author: I. P. Mukerji

Bench: I. P. Mukerji

                                       1


04.02.2019
Sl.No. 05
Ct.No.18                        ASSIGNED
Amalranjan
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              APPELLATE SIDE

                              FMAT 187 of 2018
                             (FMA 1679 of 2018)

                       PRK Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & anr.
                                     Vs.
                                Manojit Mitra

             Mr.   Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.
             Mr.   Suman Dutta
             Mr.   Krishna Raj Thakker
             Mr.   Ajay Gaggar
             Mr.   Ashok Bose
             Mr.   Sanket Sarawgi
             Mr.   Ishan Saha
             Mr.   Shakti Nag
                                                             ...for the appellants

             Mr.   Ahin Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate
             Mr.   Arindam Banerjee
             Mr.   Suddhasatta Banerjee
             Mr.   B. Kumar
                                                             ...for the respondent

Re.: CAN 1811 of 2018 (stay) This is a first appeal from a judgment and order dated 24th January, 2018 in Title Suit No. 2285 of 2016 (Manojit Mitra Vs. PRK Infrastructure Private Limited & another) passed by the 4th Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore making an interim order of injunction in aid of the suit. By this final interim order, the earlier interim order of 8th June, 2016 for maintaining status quo of the suit property was "made absolute". 2 The defendants have filed this first appeal in this court. The suit concerns a dispute between an alleged vendor, the respondent/plaintiff and the alleged purchasers being the appellants/ defendants. The respondent plaintiff claims to be the owner of the undivided 50% of premises No. 7, Justice Chandra Madhav Road. This is the property described in the schedule.

The appellants/defendants as alleged purchasers are desirous of taking possession of this part of the property for the purpose of promoting and developing it. The respondent plaintiff resists this claim on the ground that there is no valid conveyance executed by him in favour of the purchasers, he has not received any consideration, he is still in possession of the property. Philips, the tenant who was in possession of the property at the time of its alleged sale left the property in 2017 handing over possession of the said 50% undivided share, inter alia, to the respondent plaintiff.

The appellants/defendants assert just the opposite. Substantial consideration has been received by the respondent/plaintiff and that a valid conveyance was executed by him in their favour. Whatever may be the ultimate result of the suit the respondent/plaintiff appears to be in possession of the 50% of the property. Furthermore, in 2017 the 3 lessee/tenant Philips handed over this 50% of this undivided property to him, while surrendering the tenancy. The respondent plaintiff has retained possession of this part of the property. Therefore, some prima facie case has been made out, in our opinion. On consideration of the prima facie case or at least the substantial question that has been raised, to be tried and the balance of convenience we do not think that an order directing continuance of the status quo regarding the subject property till the disposal of the suit was erroneous. The appellants/ defendants have also got some stake in its case. Considering of all facts and circumstances of this case we feel that this injunction is to continue upon expediting the suit. In those circumstances, we request the learned Judge of the court below to decree (dismissal included) the suit (including the counter claim) within six months from the date of communication of this order. The learned Judge is also requested to dispose of first, the pending application for amendment of the plaint within six weeks of communication of this order.

The written objection and re-joinder to the amendment application shall be filed by 7th and 14th February, 2019 respectively. Whether any pending interim application will be 4 disposed of before the suit or with the trial of the suit will be decided by the learned trial Judge.

With these observations, the appeal (FMAT 187 of 2018) together with the connected application for stay (CAN 1811 of 2018) are disposed of.

Urgent certified photo copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

( I. P. Mukerji,J. ) ( Amrita Sinha,J. )