DEPENDRA NATH BASU Vs. EASTERN RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order no. 2 dated 3.1.2007 passed by the learned District Judge Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 320 of 2006 by which an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the maintainability of a single appeal is rejected. Before adverting to the point taken by the petitioner brief facts are necessary to be spelt out. The petitioner filed Title suit no. 44 of 2006 for declaration that the opposite parties cannot dispossess him in respect of a hoarding, glow sign and kiosks without due process of law and that the agreement between the petitioner and the opposite parties is to be renewed on the prayer of renewal and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from interfering with the right of the petitioner to display the advertisement from the said hoarding, glow sign and kiosks as described in the schedule to the plaint.

(2.) An application for injunction is taken out by the petitioner in the said suit for an order restraining the opposite parties from interfering with the rights of the petitioner to display advertisement from the said hoarding, glow sign and kiosks and also from creating any third party interest in respect of the schedule property. An ad interim order of injunction was passed by the trial court.

(3.) The opposite parties filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ad interim order. However, affidavits were exchanged by the parties in both the applications viz. an application for injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code and an application for vacating an ad interim order filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code.