INFO EDGE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SUMANTA BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order No. 132 dated 11-2-2011 passed by the learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 572 of 2004 whereby the learned Judge turned down the prayer of the petitioner/defendants for dismissing the application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff/opposite parties herein.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the instant dispute is as follows:

(3.) Arguing in support of the application Mr. Sakti Nath Mookherjee, Sr. Advocate, appearing with Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Jiban Ratan chatterjee, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, learned Advocate and Mr. Dipayan choudhury, learned Advocate, submitted that apart from the grounds of fraud and suppression that have been pleaded in the aforesaid application before the trial Court, the aforesaid Misc. Case ought to be dismissed on the ground that the trial Court did not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the same since the order of injunction which was allegedly breached was no longer in existence and there was nothing left for the Court to enforce. He submitted that the scope and ambit of an application under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code is exclusively executory in nature and the provisions for attachment or detention in civil prison as provided therein, are only for the purpose of enforcing/executing the said order and not for punishing the defaulting party.