Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rahtan Bibi And Others vs Arshed Mir And Others on 9 February, 2018
1 S/L. 2.
February 9, 2018.
MNS.
C. O. No. 419 of 2018 Rahtan Bibi and others Vs. Arshed Mir and others Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh ...for the petitioners.
The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs in respect of an immovable property have filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated January 29, 2018 as well as an order dated February 1, 2018 passed in Title Suit No. 9 of 2016.
It appears from the annexed order sheet that, on the prayer of the plaintiffs/petitioners, the trial court granted an order of injunction in the form of status quo in respect of nature, character and possession over "kha" schedule property till November 11, 2016. Such ad interim order was thereafter extended from time to time and lastly vide order No. 17 dated April 10, 2017, the said ad interim order was extended till hearing of the injunction application. Thereafter on a subsequent date, being January 19, 2018, the court below all on a sudden recorded that since the plaintiffs had not prayed for extension of the ad interim order of injunction, such order granted earlier was vacated. Thereafter the plaintiffs/petitioners took out an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure pointing out to the court below as to the palpable mistake committed by it. However, vide order No. 23 dated January 29, 2018, the trial court relegated such application to the next date and kept it pending. Thereafter, the petitioner renewed his 2 attempt to get such application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure heard and filed another put up petition, which was taken up for hearing on February 1, 2018 and relegated the same to the next date, that is, February 19, 2018.
It is evident from the materials on record that the order dated January 19, 2018 was passed on an erroneous basis, since the ad interim order of injunction had already been extended till hearing of the injunction application and there was no scope for seeking further extension of the same. It appears prima facie that the court below committed a jurisdictional error in postponing the subsequent application of the petitioner, pointing out such mistake, to a further date.
As such, the petitioners are directed to serve copies of this revisional application upon the opposite parties with intimation that the matter will next appear in the monthly list of March, 2018 for hearing, and to file affidavit-of-service on the next date of hearing.
It is made clear that in view of the palpable mistake which prima facie appears from the order dated January 19, 2018, the status quo order granted by the trial court on January 15, 2016, and subsequently extended, ultimately till disposal of the injunction application, is still subsisting. It is expected that the parties would act accordingly till disposal of the present revisional application.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)