Krishna Chnadra Ghosh Alias Nabakumar Ghosh Vs Tapan Kumar Ghosh — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Krishna Chnadra Ghosh Alias Nabakumar Ghosh Vs Tapan Kumar Ghosh — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revisional application disposed of with the appellate court's status quo order left undisturbed; the learned Trial Judge requested to dispose of the Suit within six months from communication of the order, without entertaining unnecessary adjournments.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 31st March, 2021 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 2018 promulgating status quo over possession and construction on the suit property suffers from any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference in this revisional application. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no irregularity or infirmity in the order impugned in this revisional application.

Ratio / Principle

The promulgation of the order of status quo protecting the possession of both parties cannot be said to be an unjust order.

Key takeaways

Considering the long pendency of the Suit, the learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of the Suit within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.obiter¶8
The learned Trial Judge shall not entertain any unnecessary adjournment sought for by either of the parties.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction, Appellate Side) — CO 82 of 2022: Sri Krishna Chandra Ghosh @ NabaKumar Ghosh (petitioner/defendant) v. Tapan Kumar Ghosh (opposite party/plaintiff). The revision assailed the order dated 31st March, 2021 of the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly Sadar, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 2018 arising out of Title Suit No. 122 of 2019, which set aside the order dated 7th May, 2018 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly refusing the plaintiff's prayer for temporary injunction under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the trial court had found the plaintiff in possession of 5 decimal of land but no document in support of the 1½ decimal mentioned in the schedule to the plaint), and instead promulgated status quo over possession as well as construction on the subject property to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Held: the status quo protecting the possession of both parties — the defendant claiming 8 decimal and the plaintiff claiming 6½ decimal — cannot be said to be an unjust order, and no irregularity or infirmity was found in the order impugned. Considering the long pendency, the Trial Judge was requested to dispose of the Suit within six months from communication of the order, without entertaining unnecessary adjournments. The revisional application stands disposed of.

Item 03.09. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA No. 2024 CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION 05 APPELLATE SIDE

Ct 22

rup

CO 82 of 2022 Sri Krishna Chandra Ghosh @ NabaKumar Ghosh Vs Tapan Kumar Ghosh Mr. Sukumar Ghosh, Ms. Moumita Ghosh.. … for the petitioner. Mr. Sujit Kr. Rath, Mr. Subir Hazra, Mr. Sumumar Sarkar. … for the opposite party.

This revisional application has been preferred assailing the order dated 31^st March, 2021 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 26 of 2018 arising out of Title Suit No. 122 of 2019 by the learned Additional District Judge, 2^nd Court, Hooghly Sadar, wherein learned Judge set aside the order dated 7^th May, 2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly refusing the prayer for temporary injunction under Section 94 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

From the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly, it appears that learned Judge though found possession of the plaintiff in respect of 5 decimal of land who did not find any document

2

in support of 1½ decimal of land mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and, therefore, the prayer for temporary injunction was refused. The said order of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly was assailed in the Misc. Appeal being No. 26 of 2018, wherein learned Appellate Court focused on construction being undertaken on the subject property and to prevent multiplicity of proceeding promulgated the order of status quo in respect of possession as well as construction over the subject property.

Learned counsel in behalf of the petitioner/defendant has submitted that the plaintiff/opposite party is in possession of 5 decimal of land and defendant/petitioner is in possession of 8 decimal of land.

In opposition to that learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party/plaintiff has submitted that plaintiff is in possession of 6½ decimal of land.

Given facts and circumstances, the possession of both the parties were protected by the promulgation of order of status quo cannot be said to be an unjust order.

Thus, I find no irregularity or infirmity in the order impugned in this revisional application.

3

At this stage, both the learned counsel on behalf of the parties to this revisional application have submitted for giving a direction upon the Trial Court to dispose of the Suit within a specified period.

Considering the long pendency of the Suit learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of the Suit within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.

I make it clear that learned Trial Judge shall not entertain any unnecessary adjournment in case sought for by either of the parties.

With this observation, the revisional application stands disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.