SALIM MAKKAR Vs. N K PANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner have filed C.S. No.108 of 2001 as plaintiff against N.K. Pansari and others for certain reliefs. The plaint case inter alia, was that the plaintiff is the lessee of premises No.25, Black Burn Lane, Calcutta for a period of 99 years through a registered deed of lease dated 5th December, 1984 obtained from Miss. Lily Tweena and Mrs. Rosalind Jacob who were possessing the said premises adversely and as of right for more than 12 years. Having returned from Dubai on 9th February, 2001 he found construction being carried on in the said premises. On enquiry he came to learn that the defendant No.1, N, .K. Pansari had been making construction. In connection with the said suit an affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the defendant No.1 wherein the defendant No.1 had disclosed the fact that such construction is being made on the basis of a plan sanctioned sometimes back since been revalidated in 1997. Since the relief with regard to the revalidation of the said plan could not be had in the suit and that the Corporation was not a party to it, therefore, the writ petition has since been filed in which an interim order is obtained from this Court. This interim order is sought to be extended on behalf of the petitioner which is being opposed on behalf of the defendant No.1, N.K. Pansari being the respondent in the writ petition.

(2.) . Since the question involves certain matters which are inter-related to the suit as well as in the writ petition therefore, records of the suit have also been brought to this Court. The defendant No.1 has filed an application for taking the plaint off the file and recalling of the order dated 26th February, 2001 passed in T. No.160 of 2001 (C.S. No.108 of 2001) and G.A. No. of 2001. By consent of parties the application for injunction and the prayer for vacating the interim order in the suit and the writ petition are being taken up. Both the counsel for the respective parties had addressed the Court on the question of grant of interim order of injunction and the maintainability of the writ petition as well as continuance or vacating of the interim order granted in the suit being the order dated 26th February, 2001 and in the writ petition being the order dated 23rd of March, 2001. Both of them had relied upon the records of the suit as well as the writ petition for the purpose of addressing the Court on the question before it.

(3.) . At the outset it may be mentioned that Mithua Development (P) Ltd. and Ayush Niketan Pvt. Ltd. are not parties in the writ petition though they are parties in the suit. The main relief in the suit is against Mithua Developments Pvt. Ltd. and Ayush Niketan Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, this writ petition could not have been maintained in the absence of this two parties. In as any order passed in this writ petition would affect the rights of these two parties. On the other hand it may noted that for the same purpose involved in the suit the interim order is being asked in the writ petition. Thus the said two parties are not only necessary but are proper parties to the writ petition. These two parties had sought leave to intervene. In the facts and circumstances of the case they are permitted to intervene as respondents.