TAPAS KUMAR DHAR Vs. PARVATI DHAYAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional application is directed against an order dated February 17, 2010 passed by the Ld. District Judge, North 24 Parganas in Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2010. By virtue of the impugned order, the Defendant /Petitioner was restrained from entering into any agreement for sale in respect of 60% of the constructed area in question with any third party till further orders.

(2.) The Plaintiff/opposite party filed a Title Suit No. 13 of 2010 for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant/ Petitioner from entering into an agreement for sale with third party or the intending purchaser without keeping 60% shares of the Plaintiff/opposite party as per terms and conditions of the agreement to raise further construction in the suit property. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court at Barsat, North 24 Parganas passed an order dated January 22, 2010 in connection with the petition filed by the Plaintiff/opposite party under Order 39 Rules 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the prayer for passing an ad-interim injunction. The Plaintiff/opposite party preferred an appeal bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 2010. The learned District Judge, North 24 Parganas passed the impugned order. Hence, this Revision application.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that admittedly the agreement under reference was entered into by the firm, namely Radhashree Plaza. According to him, the partner of that firm was before the learned Court below. It is also submitted by him that, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not taken into consideration by the learned appellate Court while passing the impugned order. Because, no reason was assigned for passing an ad interim order of injunction. It is further submitted by him that the impugned ad-interim injunction was passed for an indefinite period. According to him, the same could not be sustainable in law in view of the settled principles of law. He relies upon the decision of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, 1994 4 SCC 225.