Calcutta High Court
Ghanshyam Sarda vs Sri Govind Kumar Sarda & Ors on 15 January, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
ORDER SHEET
G. A. No. 3709 of 2015
With
C. S. No. 278 of 2015
G. A. No. 682 of 2016
G. A. No. 683 of 2016
G. A. No. 684 of 2016
G. A. No. 685 of 2016
G. A. No. 687 of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
GHANSHYAM SARDA
Versus
SRI GOVIND KUMAR SARDA & ORS.
AND
G. A. No. 2460 of 2017
With
C. S. No. 278 of 2015
IN THE MATTER OF:
GHANSHYAM SARDA
Versus
SRI GOVIND KUMAR SARDA & ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 15th January, 2018.
Appearance:
Mr. S. N. Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Kanodia, Adv.
Mr. S. Sarkar, Adv.
...for the plaintiff.
Ms. Manju Agarwal Adv.
Mr. B.Manot, Adv.
...for respondent no.83.
Dhruba Ghosh,Sr.Adv.
Mr.R. Chandra Deb, Adv.
...for respondent no. 20.
2Mr.S.Talukder,Sr.Adv.
Mr.Ayan De, Adv. for respondent no.127 Mr.Aniruddha Chatterji, Adv.
For respondent no.128 Mr.Arindam Mukherjee, Mr.Binay Kumar Jain, Mr.A.Jain,Advs.
For respondent no.19
Mr.Jishnu Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Aritra Basu, Adv.
Mr. S. K. Kundu, Adv.
...for defendant nos.79, 121 to 125.
Mr.Arik Banerjee, Mr.Rajib Mullick, Advs.
For respondent nos.82 and 83
The Court:-Mr.Talukder, learned senior Advocate
appears on behalf of added defendant no.127 and hands up copy of order dated 22nd December, 2017 passed in appeal preferred against my order dated 27th November, 2017. Two paragraphs from the said order are extracted below:-
"It, however, appears from the order impugned dated November 27, 2017 that nothing has been decided by such order and only a preliminary injunction has been issued. Since the matter has been fixed by the trial Court on January 9, 2018, it would be inappropriate to interfere with the twin aspects that the appellants complain of at this stage.
The appellants will be at liberty to urge before the trial Court that the appellants ought not to be impleaded as parties. It will also be open to the appellants to contend that the order of injunction 3 restraining them from dealing with the relevant property ought to be discontinued."
Mr. Talukder presses for hearing of the question of vacating the interim order. On query from Court he submits, his client made ready affidavit-in-opposition to be used, out of time, and had served a copy thereof on the plaintiff. In this context he seeks leave to file the affidavit without prejudice to the liberty granted to his client to urge for vacating the interim order. He submits further, his client is a bona fide purchaser without notice. He presses for hearing without waiting for affidavit-in-reply to come in.
Mr. Chatterji, learned Advocate appears for added defendant no.128 and adopts the submissions made by Mr. Talukder. He too seeks leave to file his client's affidavit on similar circumstances, without prejudice to the liberty granted to his client by the appeal court. He submits further, there is no connection between his client and the defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit. The suit and the proceedings therein are a mechanism by which his client's properties are sought to be grabbed.
Mr. Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of defendant nos.79, 121 to 125 seeks extension of time to file affidavits-in- opposition. His clients dealt with the properties to the added defendants.
Mr. Mitra, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff submits, advance copies of affidavits-in-opposition of the added defendants have already been received by his client. His client is entitled to 4 use reply thereto. On top of that defendant no.79 and its subsidiaries are seeking extension of time to file affidavits-in-opposition, which extension if granted, will also entitled his client to deal with the such affidavits. Hearing regarding vacating the interim order granted can only take place after affidavits are complete.
This Court had enquired of Mr. Talukder whether he would argue the matter without affidavits. Mr. Talukder's response was that he should be heard but in course of such hearing, if he needed to rely on the affidavit-in-opposition, then the matter can be adjourned for the purpose of extension of time granted to file reply thereto.
This Court is not inclined to hear the matter piecemeal. The defendant no.79 and its subsidiaries are granted extension of time to file affidavit-in-opposition by ten days as sought for. Such affidavits must be filed by 25th January, 2018. The plaintiff is granted extension of time to file replies to all affidavits by 12th February, 2018. List on 13th February, 2018 at 3.30 P.M. In the circumstances the interim order is extended to run till 28th February, 2018 in spite of objection thereto by Mr. Talukder.
(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) sb/