BINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the order dated 14th August, 1996 passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 1992. By that order that Court affirmed the order dated 3rd February, 1992 passed by the Ld. Munsif, 4th Court. Howrah in T. S. No. 26/1992 granting an ad interim injunction ex parte directing both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo of the suit property till the disposal of the injunction-petition under Order 39, C.P.C. The relevant facts were as follows. The suit No. T. S. 26/1992 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent praying for a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing plaintiffs peaceful possession in the suit property and the plaintiffs also prayed for temporary injunction to the above effect till the final disposal of the suit. While passing the order for issuing notice upon the defendants to show cause why the temporary injunction as prayed for would not be granted the Ld. Munsif passed the impugned order granting the aforementioned interim injunction by directing the parties to maintain status quo till the hearing of the injunction petition. Being aggrieved by that order the defendants (the present petitioners) preferred the abovementioned Misc. Appeal before the Court of District Judge, Howrah and the same was transferred to the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Howrah for hearing and disposal and after hearing arguments of both sides the Ld. Additional District Judge passed the impugned order affirming the order of the Ld. Munsif in question.

(2.) Being again dissatisfied with that order the defendants have preferred the present revisional application under Section 115 of the Civjl Procedure Code challenging the impugned order as illegal, erroneous and liable to be set aside. The case of the defendants-petitioners is that the suit holding is a Thika property and the petitioners are Thika-tenants therein and as per the provisions of the Thika tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation) Act, 1981, the suit holding being a Thika property is not transferrable and the petitioners applied before the Thika Controller, Howrah in prescribed form praying for an order accepting them as a Thika-tenants and the Ld. Controller after being satisfied accepted them as Thika-tenants pro visionally and permitted them to deposit the monthly rents provisionally with effect from 18th January, 1982. Accordingly, the petitioners having mutated their names in the records of Howrah Municipal Corporation and have been deposited the tax before the Municipal Authority and they have also submitted building plan before the said Corporation for sanction for the propose of raising construction on the said Thika property. Under such circumstances the plaintiff- O.P.s were not entitled to purchase the property or to have exercised any right of ownership and the order of the Ld. Munsif granting them interim injunction was erroneous and illegal. Being emboldened by the ad interim order of status quo they were trying to put a padlock on the gate of the door of the shop-cum-godown belonging to the petitioners situated on the suit property and were trying to dispossess the petitioners from there. It has also been averred in the petition that the petitioners had filed a Title Suit being T. S. No. 83/1992 in the Court of 4th Munsif, Howrah for declaration that they were Thika-tenants in respect of the suit property having possessory right and the O.Ps. had no manner of right, title or interest therein and for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in the suit property and they also have filed a petition for temporary injunction in that suit and the Court also after being satisfied granted an ad interim order of injunction restraining the O.Ps. from interfering with the physical possession of the petitioners therein till the hearing of the said petition for temporary injunction (vide its order dated 13th April, 1992). But an application having been filed by the O.Ps. under Order 39, Rule 4, C.P.C. in the aforementioned T. S. No. 83/1992 and the Court having heard both sides regarding that petition passed an order (Order dt. 5th June, 1992) vacating the said interim order of injunction and allowing the application of the O.Ps. under Order 39, Rule 4, C.P.C. Being aggrieved by that order the petitioners preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 161/1992 in the Court of District Judge, Howrah against that order dated 5th June, 1992 and the Ld. 2nd Additional District Judge, Howrah upon hearing both sides on that petition passed an order dated July 31st 1993 allowing that appeal and restoring that ad interim order of injunction which was passed in favour of-the petitioners and thereby setting aside the impugned order passed by the Court of Munsif.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with that order the O.Ps. filed a revisional application before this Court and obtained an interim order of status quo.