Calcutta High Court
Syed Jaffar Hussain & Ors vs Syed Hamid Hussain on 2 April, 2015
1
ORDER SHEET
GA Nos. 551 and 552 of 2015
APO No. 787 of 1988
WP No. 1940 of 1988
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SYED JAFFAR HUSSAIN & ORS.
Versus
SYED HAMID HUSSAIN
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Date : 2nd April, 2015.
Appearance:
Mr. Partha Chakraborty and Mr. Avijit Ghosal
Ld. Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr. Sukrit Mukherjee, Mr. S. R.Kakrania
Mr. Sanjeeb Seni and Mr. Souvik Kundu,
Ld. Advocates for Vora
Md. Salahuddin, ld. Advocate for
Respondent no.9
Mr. Arif Ali, ld. Advocate for respondent no.11 Syed Haider Hasan Kazimi in person Respondent no. 6 The Court :- Strange things happened and is happening. Hooghly Immambara is a place of historical importance. Two Mohammedan persons namely Haji Syed Ziller Rahaman and Hasan Immam filed a suit before the District Judge at Hooghly being Religious Endowment Suit No. 19 of 1979, inter-alia, praying for removal of the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the said suit from the Committee of Management, who were looking after the Hooghly Immambara and appoint new members in their place.
2During the pendency of the suit before the District Judge at Hooghly an application was made before this Court in its Original Side under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, inter-alia, praying for transfer of the suit from the District Court at Hooghly to this Court. The learned Judge declined as submitted by Mr. Sakya Sen, learned Advocate appearing for one of the parties.
Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant appeal that, as per our departmental note, stood disposed of vide order dated September 21, 1994. The parties appearing before us would, however, not be in a position to place the order of disposal before us. We are in doubt as to how the appeal could be maintainable before this Court. However, we find from the record, series of orders were passed and are being passed relating to the management and control of the said Imambara. Two Advocates of this Court were appointed as Joint Administrators and four members were appointed in the Advisory Committee as submitted by Mr. Syed Haider Hasan Kazimi appearing in person.
Mr.Sen would, however, inform this Court, the Administrators have since been discharged. Mr.Arif Ali, learned Counsel appearing for one of the parties would support Mr.Sen on that issue.
3
The present applications have been made by the applicant, inter alia, complaining, he is in possession of the property that is being disturbed with the blessings of this Court. They pray for recall of the order dated October 1, 1993 appearing at page 112 that gave direction for dealing with the property. Such direction was passed by the Division Bench in the present appeal. He would contend, he has his right to enjoy his property that should not be disturbed with the blessings of this Court in which they were not party to the proceeding.
The appeals stood disposed of vide order dated September 21, 1994 as submitted by the parties, upon looking to the case status information received from the department. In our view, even if an order under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent refusing to transfer the suit to this Court is maintainable, this Court possibly would not be competent enough to appoint Administrator or direct supervision of the property that would be within the domain of the District Court at Hooghly. So long the suit is not transferred to this Court, if any order is passed that would have no consequence being a nullity in the eye of law.
The parties would be free to protect their interest in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. 4
We direct the department not to entertain any further application in this lis. The Joint Registrar, Original Side, must take note of this direction.
The applications are thus disposed of without any order as to costs.
(BANERJEE, J.) (SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J.) dg/sd.