Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

mb In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.O. 3295 of 2017 Uttam Das

-Vs.-

Rameswaram Construction & Supply & Anr.

Mr. Sarbesh Pal ...for the petitioner The petitioner in the present revisional application complains that despite being a lawful tenant in respect of a suit premises, the petitioner has been evicted unceremoniously without following due process of law. The petitioner alleges that such unlawful eviction was at the instance of the opposite party no. 1/developer in nexus with the opposite party no. 2/landlord. It appears upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the materials on record, that initially the opposite party no.2/landlord instituted a suit, bearing Title Suit No. 297 of 2016, wherein the present petitioner filed a written statement along with a counter- claim. In such suit, the petitioner took out an application for temporary injunction and had obtained a limited order of status quo in respect of the suit property. However, immediately upon such limited order of status quo having spent its force, the opposite parties allegedly ousted the petitioner from the suit property without taking recourse to due process of law. To cover up such alleged illegal exercise, the opposite party no. 1/developer filed a second suit and obtained therein an ad interim injunction on April 25, 2017 restraining the defendants therein, including the present petitioner, from disturbing the plaintiff's usage of the "A" and "B" Schedule properties in such suit, in any manner. Being thus aggrieved, the present petitioner took recourse to an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating and/or modifying a subsequent extension of such order dated April 25, 2017. The petitioner has also preferred a miscellaneous appeal against such extension order, giving rise to Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2050 of 2017. The petitioner also filed in connection with such miscellaneous appeal, an application for stay of operation of the order impugned therein. By virtue of the impugned order dated August 24, 2017, the petitioner's prayer for ad interim stay has been refused.