Abul Kalam Mondal Vs Sahin Mondal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Abul Kalam Mondal Vs Sahin Mondal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal and connected application disposed of with directions for time-bound disposal of the temporary injunction application: appellant to file rejoinder within 7 days; trial Court to prepone the hearing (not beyond 7 days from filing of the rejoinder) and endeavour to dispose of the application within 10 days thereafter, on day-to-day basis without adjournments unless necessitated by unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances; the Court's observations to carry no persuasive effect on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal arising from the trial Court's refusal of an ex parte ad interim injunction should be disposed of by directing the trial Court to decide the pending application for temporary injunction on merits within a time-bound schedule.

Court's answer

The appellant is permitted to file a rejoinder to the written objection filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 within 7 days from date.

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court is requested to prepone the date already fixed for hearing of the temporary injunction application, which should not exceed beyond 7 days from the date of filing the rejoinder.

Key takeaways

The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the application for temporary injunction within 10 days from the preponed hearing date, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.ratio¶14
If necessary, the learned Judge shall fix the hearing of the temporary injunction application on a day-to-day basis to adhere to the indicated time limit.ratio¶15
Adjournments shall not be granted to either party unless necessitated by unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (FMAT 415 of 2024 with CAN 2 of 2024) arising from a trial Court order refusing an ex parte ad interim injunction and issuing show cause on the defendants: disposed of by directing time-bound disposal of the pending application for temporary injunction. The appellant was permitted to file a rejoinder to the written objection of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 within 7 days; the trial Court was requested to prepone the already-fixed hearing date (not beyond 7 days from filing of the rejoinder) and to endeavour to dispose of the application within 10 days thereafter, fixing day-to-day hearings if necessary and granting no adjournments unless necessitated by unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. The Court expressly recorded that it had no occasion to go into the merits and that its observations shall have no persuasive effect. Respondent Nos. 6 to 12 were served but neither appeared nor contested. Coram: Harish Tandon and Prasenjit Biswas, JJ.; decided 08.01.2025.

08.01.2025 sayandeep Sl. No. 82 Ct. No. 08

FMAT 415 of 2024 With CAN 2 of 2024

Abul Kalam Mondal -VersusSahin Mondal & ors.

Ms. Manali Biswas

….. for the appellant

Ms. Shahima Haque

Ms. Moumita Kumar

….for the respondent No. 1 to 5

Pursuant to the order dated 17.12.2024, the respondent nos. 1 to 5 appeared in the instant appeal. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant that the service was effected upon respondent Nos. 6 to 12 in the trial Court but they neither appeared nor chose to contest the application for temporary injunction. It appears that the appearing respondents are the contesting defendants in an application for temporary injunction and, therefore, there is no impediment in securing the disposal thereof.

The instant appeal arises from an order by which the trial Court refuses to pass the ex parte ad interim order of injunction and issued show cause upon the defendants/respondents as to why the prayer for injunction should not be allowed. We are given to understand that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has already filed written objection to an application for temporary injunction but the appellant has not filed the rejoinder thereto.

It would meet the ends of justice if the application for temporary injunction is decided on merit within a short period of time as the purpose for temporary injunction would be frustrated by delay.

2

We, therefore, permit the appellant to file rejoinder to the written objection filed by the said respondents within 7 days from date.

The trial Court is requested to prepone the date already fixed for hearing of the said application for temporary injunction which should not exceed beyond 7 days from date of filing the rejoinder and shall make endavour to dispose of the application for temporary injunction within 10 days therefrom after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties.

In order to adhere the time limit as indicate above, if necessary, the learned Judge shall fix the date for hearing of an application for temporary injunction on day to day basis and shall not grant adjournments to either parties unless necessitated by unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances.

For abundant precaution, it is hereby made clear that this Court has no occasion to go into the merit of the respective stands of the parties and any observations made hereinabove shall not have any persuasive effect in deciding an application for temporary injunction on merit in accordance with law. The appeal and the connected application are accordingly disposed of.

(Harish Tandon, J.)

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)