High CourtsSingle Bench

Mobassor Hossain and Others vs Manik Chandra Pal and Others

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 6 September 2005 · Citation: AIR 2006 Cal 195 : (2005) 4 CHN 499

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J
CASE NUMBER
C.O. No. 2438 of 2005

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 363 words

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.—By the order impugned in this revisional application, the learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court stayed operation of the order No. 7 dated April 18, 2005 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Title Suit No. 15 of 2005. By the order dated April 18, 2005 the learned Trial Judge, upon a contested hearing, granted temporary order of injunction.

2.

In my view, the learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court was not justified in granting stay of operation of the order granting temporary order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge. In a miscellaneous appeal arising out of order granting temporary injunction, all efforts should be made by the learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court to dispose of such appeal, but, normally, no stay of operation of the order granting temporary injunction should be granted resulting practically allowing the appeal itself at the initial stage without hearing the other side.

3.

I, therefore, set aside the order impugned in this revisional application and direct the learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court to make all endeavour to see that the appeal itself is disposed of by December, 2005 peremptorily. Accordingly, I authorise the learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties while disposing of the appeal.

4.

However, till the disposal of the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 2005, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as of today, in relation to the disputed property.

5.

The learned Judge in the Lower Appellate Court shall decide the appeal independently and uninfluenced by the fact that this Court, by way of an interim arrangement, directed maintenance of status quo till the disposal of the appeal, as this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim and the counter-claim of the parties involved in the appeal.

6.

The revisional application is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

7.

There will be no order as to costs.

8.

Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.