Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
2841/2011 on 30 August, 2011
Author: Prasenjit Mandal
Bench: Prasenjit Mandal
1 30.08.11
Basudev C.O. 2841 of 2011
Mr. Gopal Ghosh
- For the Petitioners.
Mr. Anirban Bose
- For the Opposite Parties.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides.
This revisional application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the order dated July 8, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Arambag in Misc. Appeal being no. 06 of 2010 thereby disposing of the said Misc. Appeal directing both the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint.
The short fact is that the plaintiffs filed the said Title Suit before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Arambag for declaration, injunction and other reliefs.
The defendants are contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the plaint.
The plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction. The learned trial Judge disposed of the application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs till the final disposal of the suit.
Being aggrieved, the defendant no. 1 has preferred this Misc. Appeal being no. 6 of 2010 and that Misc. Appeal was disposed of on contest directing both the parties to maintain status quo as regards the possession, 2 nature and character of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit till the final disposal of the suit.
Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiffs.
Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that in the instant case, both the parties have claimed possession over the suit property.
Admittedly, the husband of the plaintiff no. 1 was the owner of the suit property and the Deed of Settlement which is an unregistered one, is a matter of dispute and it shall be decided at the time of trial of the suit. The object of granting injunction is to keep the property status quo during the pendency of the suit and such a measure has been adopted by the learned Appellate Court.
Under the circumstances, apparently, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
I am told that the written statement has been filed by the defendant and issues are to be framed shortly.
The suit was filed in the year of 2009 and so, it will not take much time to dispose of the suit.
Accordingly, this revisional application is disposed of by passing the following orders:
i) That the learned trial Judge shall frame issues, if not already framed, within two weeks from the date of communication of this order;
ii) That thereafter he shall take necessary steps for discovery, inspection etc., if required.3
iii) That thereafter he shall fix a date for peremptory hearing of the suit and then he shall dispose of the said Title Suit within six months from the date of fixing of the peremptory hearing. He shall also take up day to day basis hearing at the time of peremptory hearing of the suit to ensure disposal within the stipulated period.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Prasenjit Mandal, J.)