Aryadeep Real Estates Pvt. Ltd vs Josnika Infra Private Limited & Ors

The Instant appeal arises from an order dated June 21, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court, Barasat, North 24-

Parganas in Title Suit No. 408 of 2019 by which the prayer for ex parte ad interim order of injunction was refused.

The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for recovery of possession upon revocation of license. The plaintiff traced his title on the strength of a registered

lease deed dated May 12, 2017 executed by and between Titagarh PLC and the plaintiff for the logistic business. It is further stated in the plaint that

the construction of a warehouse and allied facilities were made by the plaintiffs and to facilitate the said logistic business, obtained a trade license from

the local municipality.

Subsequently, the defendant/respondent approached the plaintiff for granting leave and licence in respect of an area measuring 10354 sq.ft. for

construction of the warehouse by the defendant and an agreement was executed on August 1, 2017. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant

failed and neglected to pay the licence fee and despite the demand in this regard made several time they did not pay any heed to it.

In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact that the suit was filed for recovery of possession upon revocation of licence, the plaintiff/appellant filed an

application for injunction alleging that the defendant/respondent are contemplating to sublet the suit premises by introducing a third party therein and,

therefore, should be restrained from doing so.

The Trial Court refused to pass any ex parte ad interim order of injunction solely on the ground that the plaintiff/appellant did not file any document to

show its authority over the suit property and that the defendant/ respondent is in possession of the suit property and running its business therefrom.

Apparently, we find a grave error committed by the learned Judge in the Trial Court in refusing to pass ex parte ad interim order of injunction under

such pretext. The agreement dated August 1, 2017 was annexed to an application for injunction, which is self-evident. It was not necessary for the

plaintiff to prove his authority to construct the warehouse for logistic purposes since an agreement was entered into by and between the parties to the

suit. However, when the instant appeal has been taken up by us we noticed that considerable time has already elapsed. The purpose of immediate

protection envisaged under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to some extent obliterated.

However, the respondents are before us and a specific stand has been taken that they have no intention to sub-let the premises to the third party. An

application for temporary injunction is pending before the Trial Court and, therefore, we feel that it would subserve the justice if the said application is

disposed of at an earliest.

We accordingly, direct the respondents to file written objection to an application for temporary injunction within two weeks from date. Reply thereto, if

any, shall be filed within a week thereafter.

The Trial Court shall dispose of an application for temporary injunction within two weeks after the expiration of period of exchange of affidavits.

However, it is made clear that the consideration at the time of passing an ex parte ad interim order of injunction is different than the disposal of an

application for temporary injunction. Therefore, the Trial Court shall not be swayed by the fact that we did not pass any ex parte ad interim order of

injunction which, in fact, has been done because of a considerable delay caused in moving the instant appeal.

The appeal and all the connected applications are disposed of.