Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1587/2011 on 9 June, 2011
Author: Prasenjit Mandal
Bench: Prasenjit Mandal
1 C.O. 1587 of 2011 06.11 193 sudev Mr. Syamal Kr. Das, Mr. Somenath Banerjee ------- For the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
This application is at the instance of the plaintiff-petitioner and is directed against the order dated March 4, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Paschim Medinipore in Title Suit being no. 191 of 2008.
The plaintiff instituted a Title Suit being no. 191 of 208 against the defendants-opposite parties for partition, declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. In that suit, the defendants have already appeared and they are contesting the said suit. At the time of filing of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. That application was moved on the date of filing i.e. on May 14, 2008. The learned trial Judge granted an ad-interim order of injunction on that very day and issued notice of show-cause upon the opposite parties. It is unfortunate to note that since then the application for temporary injunction is still pending and the learned trial Judge is extending the interim order from time to time.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner has come up with this application for expeditious disposal of the said application as well as of the suit.
Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that the learned trial Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction as is expected in case of granting ad-interim injunction. When ad-interim injunction is granted in absence of the opposite parties, it is expected that the learned trial Judge shall dispose of the said application within 30 days from the date of granting of the ad-interim injunction and if not possible within the aforesaid period, it should be disposed of as early as possible thereafter. As noted above, the application for temporary injunction is still pending; it is submitted before me by Mr. Syamal 2 Kr. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said application has been fixed on June 14, 2011 for hearing.
This being the position, I am of the view that a specific direction shall be issued upon the learned trial Judge for disposal of the said application on the aforesaid date and if not possible on the next working day. Such order could even be passed in absence of the opposite parties because the prayer is innocuous.
Accordingly, this revisional application is disposed of by passing the following orders:
i) That the learned trial Judge shall hear out the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner on the date fixed i.e. on June 14, 2011;
ii) That if the hearing could not be taken up for any reason beyond the control of the Court, it shall be taken up on the next working day and in any way the application shall be disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of completion of hearing of the said application.
As regards the expeditious disposal of the suit, I am of the view that at present there is no scope to entertain this prayer. So, no direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the suit at this stage.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner upon compliance of necessary formalities.
Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is permitted to take the extract of the order and intimate the same to the learned trial Judge for taking necessary steps.
(Prasenjit Mandal, J.) 3