Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Devcon Pvt. Ltd vs Texmaco Infrastructure & Holdings ... on 17 January, 2019
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
1 17.01.2019
.
Item no. 22.
Court No. 14ap C.O. No. 4182 of 2017 Shree Radha Devcon Private Limited also known as Sri Radha Devcon Pvt. Ltd.
Versus Texmaco Infrastructure & Holdings Limited Mr. Arijit Basu, Mr. Sarathi Dasgupta.
...For the petitioner.
Mr. Soumyajit Ghosh, Mr. Srenik Singhi, Ms. Madhurima Halder.
...For the opposite party.
The revisionist is a defendant in a suit filed by the opposite party/plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
In addition to a prayer under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, there were other prayers made which appear to this Court to be in aid of relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 but no final opinion is expressed by this Court in that regard.
The revisionist/defendant is aggrieved by an order dated 13th November, 2017 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.240 of 2014 which was filed by the opposite party/plaintiff against 2 refusal of an order for interlocutory injunction made by the plaintiff in the first Court.
The revisionist would contend that in terms of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, no appeal would lie in respect of any order or decree passed under the said provision.
Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is indeed a bar against any such appeal.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party would rely upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. Vedavyasachar - Vs. - Shivashankara & Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 231.
In the facts of the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that while a regular suit under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for permanent injunction was filed, the plaint was subsequently sought to be amended by including a prayer under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
While there may be some factual distinction from the instant case, it appears to this Court that there are other payers for other reliefs under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the suit in the Court below.
Without, however, entering into the aforesaid controversy, this Court is of the view that ends of justice 3 would be served if there is an order of status quo directed to be maintained by both the parties for a period of three months from the date.
The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 10th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas shall dispose of the Title Suit No. 14 of 2014 mandatorily and positively and without demur, within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this Court.
I make it clear that no adjournment on any ground whatsoever shall be granted to any of the parties and the parties agreed to this effect before this Court.
In view of the aforesaid direction, Miscellaneous Application No. 240 of 2014 shall stand dismissed.
With the aforesaid directions, the revisional application is disposed of.
There will be, however, no order as to costs. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)