Ghanshyam Sarda Vs Sri Govind Kumar Sarda & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ghanshyam Sarda Vs Sri Govind Kumar Sarda & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

APO/285/2017 disposed of by extending the ad-interim order granted in connection therewith for a period of two months from date and/or until further orders are passed by the learned Single Judge taking up the temporary injunction application, whichever is earlier; GA/1/2017 (Old No. GA/1613/2017) disposed of accordingly; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the ad interim order of injunction passed in connection with the appeal, already subsisting for eight years, should be continued for a further period pending final adjudication of the temporary injunction application by the learned Single Judge.

Court's answer

Since the ad interim injunction passed in connection with the appeal has already subsisted for eight years, no serious harm would befall the respondents if it is continued for some further period while the temporary injunction application is adjudicated finally by the learned Single Judge taking up the suit.

Ratio / Principle

This Court has not entered into the merits of the appeal, and it is left open to the parties to urge all points raised by them before the learned Single Judge taking up the injunction application.

Key takeaways

It will be open to the learned Single Judge taking up the temporary injunction application to vary, modify, and/or vacate the interim order granted by this Court and/or extend the same if the ends of justice so require.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ.) disposed of APO/285/2017 (Ghanshyam Sarda v. Sri Govind Kumar Sarda & Ors.), an appeal preferred against an ad interim order of injunction, without entering into the merits. Noting that the ad interim injunction passed in connection with the appeal on May 30, 2017 had already subsisted for eight years and that the main temporary injunction application remained pending before the learned Single Judge, the Court extended the ad-interim order for two months from June 11, 2025 and/or until further orders of the learned Single Judge, whichever is earlier, leaving all points open to be urged before the Single Judge, who was expressly empowered to vary, modify, vacate or extend the interim order. GA/1/2017 (Old No. GA/1613/2017) was disposed of likewise; no order as to costs.

OD 1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON ORIGINAL SIDE

APO/285/2017 IA NO: GA/1/2017(Old No:GA/1613/2017) GHANSHYAM SARDA

VS

SRI GOVIND KUMAR SARDA & ORS.

BEFORE:

HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Date: JUNE 11, 2025.

Appearance: Mr. S.N.Mitra, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Sarkar, Adv. Mr. A. Kanodia, Adv. …for appellant

Mr. Sk. S. Nafisul Islam, Adv. …for respondent 1

Mr. Aritra Basu, Adv. ….for respondent 121 to 124

The Court:- At the outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant apprises the Court that the present appeal is pending since the year 2017 and an ad interim order of injunction was passed in connection therewith on May 30, 2017.

We find that the present challenge itself has been preferred against an adinterim order of injunction. Since the main temporary injunction application is still pending before the learned Single Judge taking up the suit, we are of the opinion that since the ad interim injunction passed in connection with the appeal

2

is already subsisting for a period of eight years, no serious harm would befall the respondents if the same is continued for some further period and the temporary injunction application is adjudicated finally by the learned Single Judge taking up the suit.

Accordingly, APO/285/2017 is disposed of by extending the ad-interim order granted in connection therewith for a period of two months from date and/or until further orders are passed by the learned Single Judge taking up temporary injunction application, whichever is earlier.

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the appeal and it is left open to the parties to urge all points raised by them before the learned Single Judge taking up the injunction application. We further clarify that it will be open to the learned Single Judge taking up the temporary injunction application to vary, modify, and/or vacate the interim order granted by us and/or extend the same if the ends of justice so require.

GA/1/2017 (Old No.GA/1613/2017) is also disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

(UDAY KUMAR, J.)

GH.