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 3, Cited by 6]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Pg (M/S. Messenger Courier & Cargo ... vs Uma Forzing Works (P) Ltd. & Ors.) on 19 November, 2019

Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee

Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee

                                           1


27   19.11.2019

C.O. 1753 of 2019 pg (M/s. Messenger Courier & Cargo Private Limited vs. Uma Forzing Works (P) Ltd. & Ors.) Mr. Sayantan Bose....................for the petitioner Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept on record. Service on the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 has come back with the endorsement 'left'.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the appellate order dated January 14, 2019 bearing no. 41 dated January 14, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 71 of 2015 upholding the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 4th Court, Howrah passed on March 17, 2015 in Title Suit No. 178 of 2014 whereby an order of injunction was passed against the petitioner (owner of the property) and in favour of the opposite parties, who claimed to have irrevocable licenses without ascertaining what was the status on the date when the said order was passed.

According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the only document that the opposite parties have relied upon is a disconnection notice of electricity, which is the subject matter of a writ petition and also the record of rights being the L.R. record of rights, which shows that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was the occupant of the land in question. According to the petitioner, none of these documents show that the petitioner does not have title but in fact, the opposite parties have admitted that the property was sold to the petitioner. It is on the basis of these documents that the 2 opposite parties claimed to have some rights in the property in question, which needs to be protected.

There does not appear to be prima facie even one document, which the opposite parties have produced before the Court below to show that they are in possession as on the date when the orders were passed. At the same time, the allegations that the opposite parties have constructed sheds and factories on the said land after obtaining an irrevocable license from the owners of the land, which is reflected by the conversion of the said land from Sali (agricultural) to Karkhana (factory) gives this Court pause. The suit must be heard to decide the question once and for all and during the pendency of the suit if there is no interim protection for the plaintiff, then the purpose of this suit may be defeated. Yet, none of the learned Courts below proceeded to have a local inspection of the suit property to record what was the status before passing a status quo order.

It has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on several occasions, inter alia in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan vs. Praveen Kumar Singh reported in AIR 2006 SC 1474 that an order of status quo cannot be passed on the asking without recording what status was to be maintained.

In such view of the matter, I think it would be proper to have a local inspection done on the said property before proceeding further with this application.

Accordingly, Mr. Debabrata Roy, learned advocate, Bar Association Room No. 2 is appointed learned Special Officer for the purpose of visiting the suit 3 property and ascertaining the nature and character of the property and also whether there is any factory or shed or the workmen's quarters on the said property and whether the said factory, shed, quarters are those on which the petitioner claims any right, title or interest.

This should be in the nature of a surprise visit and photographs may be taken, which shall be part of the report that the learned Special Officer files before this Court. The Special Officer shall be paid a remuneration in the first instance 1500 G.Ms to be paid at the first instance by the petitioner and thereafter shall be shared by the parties in equal shares.

Let the report be filed in the Court on Thursday week (November 28, 2019).

(PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.)