EASTERN TRADE SYNDICATE Vs. PASCHIM MEDINIPORE ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against the order dated September 18, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ghatal in Misc. Appeal No.6 of 2007 arising out of the Title Suit o.73 of 2007 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghatal, thereby rejecting the prayer for ad interim injunction.

(2.) THE short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.73 of 2007 for declaration and permanent injunction and he filed an application for temporary injunction. THE said application was moved before the learned Trial Judge, but the learned Trial Judge did not grant any ad interim order of injunction holding that an ad interim order of injunction could not be granted in absence of the respondent nos.1 and 2. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, the petitioner preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.6 of 2007 and he filed an application for temporary injunction praying for ad interim order of injunction also. That application was moved before the Lower Appellate Court. But upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to reject the prayer for ad interim order of injunction and he directed the appellant to serve a copy of the appeal and the application upon the respondent nos.1 and 2. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred.

(3.) DURING the argument, Mr. S.K. Chakraborty learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Swapan Kumar Dutta v. Dharam Chand Jaiswal and anr. reported in 2002(2) CHN 627 and thus, he submits that such second lease in favour of the defendant nos.3 and 4 by the Zilla Parisad is not valid. Therefore, such second lease should not be taken into consideration. The question of validity of the second lease, I think, is a matter of decision to be taken at the time of trial of the suit. At the initial stage of the suit, i.e., at the time of consideration of the prayer for ad interim injunction, the Court is to consider whether there is prima facie case and that there is any urgency in passing an ad interim order of injunction or not. So far as prima facie case, it appears that the plaintiff has shown the prima facie case to go for trial. Therefore, this decision shall be relevant at the subsequent stage of the suit and not at the initial stage.