Ramgopal Soni @ Ram Gopal Soni Vs Kanta Devi Bhiwaniwala and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramgopal Soni @ Ram Gopal Soni Vs Kanta Devi Bhiwaniwala and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal F.M.A.T 256 of 2024 dismissed at the threshold under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure without formal admission; CAN 1 of 2024 disposed of without any order as to costs; learned trial Judge directed to dispose of the main temporary injunction application expeditiously, positively within three weeks from communication of this order, adjudicating the actual prayers, pleadings and written objections on merits by applying appropriate provisions of law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's grievance — that the ad interim injunction initially granted by the learned trial Judge was not extended by the impugned order — warranted admission of the appeal. +1 more

Court's answer

By dint of the original ad interim order dated October 18, 2023, no effective relief was granted to the appellant; it merely directed the parties not to come in the ways of each other and the opposite parties/defendant nos. 1 to 7 to seek alternative accommodation, besides irrelevant observations.

Ratio / Principle

Since the ad interim order was ineffective, its extension or non-extension does not matter much insofar as the interest of the appellant is concerned.

Key takeaways

The purpose of justice would be subserved only if the substantive temporary injunction application filed in the trial court is disposed of and adjudicated on the basis of the prayers made therein upon giving opportunity of hearing to both sides.ratio¶9
Admitting the appeal would perpetuate an ineffective ad interim order and be more detrimental to the appellant; dismissing the appeal forthwith and directing the learned trial Judge to dispose of the injunction application within a limited period would serve the appellant's purpose more.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal against the learned trial Judge's refusal to extend the ad interim injunction initially granted to the appellant. The Bench found the original ad interim order dated October 18, 2023 conferred no effective relief — it merely directed the parties not to come in the ways of each other, required opposite parties/defendant nos. 1 to 7 to look for alternative accommodation, and contained irrelevant observations — so its non-extension scarcely affected the appellant. With pleadings already exchanged and the substantive temporary injunction application ripe for hearing, admitting the appeal would only perpetuate an ineffective order. Accordingly, F.M.A.T 256 of 2024 was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure; CAN 1 of 2024 was disposed of without any order as to costs; and the trial Judge was directed to decide the injunction application on merits — addressing the actual prayers and pleadings — positively within three weeks of communication of the order.

12^th March, 2025 (AK) 24

F.M.A.T 256 of 2024 IA No: CAN 1 of 2024

Ramgopal Soni @ Ram Gopal Soni Vs. Kanta Devi Bhiwaniwala and others

Mr. Debnath Ganguly Mr. Jogendra Pandey Mr. Supriyo Dutta Mr. Aranya Saha

...for the appellant.

We find from the previous orders passed in the present appeal that copies were directed to be served in respect of the application filed in connection with the appeal.

However, the appeal was never formally admitted.

The grievance of the appellant is that the ad interim order of injunction initially granted by the learned trial Judge on the basis of the temporary injunction application filed by the appellant was not extended by the impugned order all on a sudden, without any rhyme or reason.

However, on a careful perusal of the original ad interim order dated October 18, 2023, the nonextension of which is the subject-matter of challenge herein, we find that by dint of the same, no effective relief was granted to the appellant.

2

The said order merely directed the parties “not to come in the ways of each other”.

Also, the opposite parties/defendant nos.1 to 7 were directed to look for an alternative accommodation of the plaintiff/petitioner without losing much time.

Other irrelevant observations were also made in the ordering portion thereof.

Hence, the extension or non-extension of such an ineffective order does not, in our opinion, matter much insofar as the interest of the appellant is concerned.

In fact, the purpose of justice would only be subserved if the substantive temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff/appellant in the trial court is disposed of and adjudicated on the basis of the prayers made therein upon giving opportunity of hearing to both sides.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the pleadings in respect of the temporary injunction application have been exchanged by the parties in the court below.

Accordingly, the temporary injunction application itself is ripe for hearing by the learned trial Judge.

Hence, in the event we admit the appeal, the same shall be more detrimental to the interest of the appellant, since it would have the effect of

3

perpetuating an ineffective ad interim order, than if we dismiss the appeal here and now and direct the learned trial Judge to dispose of the injunction application within a limited period, which would serve the purpose of the appellant more.

Accordingly, FMAT 256 of 2024 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

CAN 1 of 2024 is also disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.

The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the

main temporary injunction application of the appellant pending before the said court as expeditiously as possible, positively within three weeks from the date of communication of this order to the learned trial Judge.

It is expected that the learned trial Judge, this time, shall advert to the actual prayers made in the injunction application and the pleadings of the parties in the injunction application and the written objection thereto and shall adjudicate the same on merits by applying appropriate provisions of law.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Uday Kumar, J.)