Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Asha Jaiswal And Others vs Sri Ajay Kumar Jaiswal And Another on 20 December, 2017
1 20.12.2017
.
Item No. 71C.O. 4124 of 2017 Smt. Asha Jaiswal and others.
Vs. Sri Ajay Kumar Jaiswal and another.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Brahmachari, Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Mr. Jayanta Samanta.
... for the petitioners.
The concurrent finding of facts of both the courts below are sought to be assailed in the instant revisional application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Both the courts below disbelieved the stand of the petitioners that the partnership business is continuing and the allegation that one of the partner has set up a new proprietorship concern and is running the business from the subject property, has not been proved by the cogent materials.
The appellate court categorically held that there is no document produced by the plaintiffs/petitioners that the said partnership business is continuing and such statement is incorrect, which would be corroborated from the electricity bill dated 15th December 2008 showing the consumption of Rs. 73/- only. The appellate court found that there is, in fact, no consumption of electricity, which logically infers that the partnership business is not continuing.
The learned advocate for the petitioners still harps on the fact that one of the partner is running the business as proprietor 2 and, therefore, both the courts have erred in rejecting the application for temporary injunction.
The High Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the concurrent finding of facts unless it is demonstrated that such finding is perverse, based on no materials or non-consideration of material evidence.
This Court, therefore, does not find that the plaintiffs/petitioners have been able to satisfy the court that the findings recorded by both the courts below are perverse.
This Court, therefore, does not find any ground warranting interference with both the orders. However, this Court feels that justice would be sub-served if the said suit is disposed of expeditiously.
Accordingly, this Court requests the learned trial Judge to make efforts to dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible, if necessary, shall decline unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and shall see that the same is disposed of within six months from the date of communication of this order.
With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
ab (Harish Tandon, J.)