SHAMSER ALI Vs. NILKAMAL SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to the judgment and order dated April 17, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Barasat in Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated January 3, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Barasat in Title Suit No.502 of 2010 thereby rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction.

(2.) On August 25, 2010, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.502 of 2010 for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendants /opposite parties herein in respect of the suit property described in the schedule to the plaint. For convenience, the declaratory reliefs and permanent injunctions as prayed for in the plaint are described below:-

(3.) On the same day, i.e., on August 25, 2010, an application for temporary injunction was moved by the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the said application was fixed for hearing on September 14,2010. On that day, the defendant No.1 entered an appearance and prayed for time and accordingly, the application for temporary injunction was fixed for hearing on November 11, 2010. Then the defendant again prayed for adjournment of hearing on November 11, 2010 and so, the injunction matter was fixed for hearing on December 14, 2010. On that date, the defendant No.s 1 to 4 filed a written statement but the hearing of the application for temporary injunction was shifted to February 22, 2011. On February 22, 2011, the defendants again prayed for adjournment of hearing the application for temporary injunction and such prayer was granted. In this way, the matter is being dragged and ultimately, the hearing of injunction matter was fixed on January 3, 2012, though the plaintiffs were pressing hard for passing orders for temporary injunction. Thereafter, on January 3, 2012, the defendants as usual again prayed for an adjournment of hearing of the injunction matter and the matter was heard in part and then adjourned to February 8, 2012 for further hearing and also for hearing of another application dated November 16, 2011. Being aggrieved by the manner in which the application for temporary injunction was being dragged, the plaintiffs moved the Lower Appellate Court by filing a Misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No.11 of 2012 stating the circumstances and challenging the Order dated January 3, 2012 that the injunction mater is being dragged in spite of the mandate as provided in the CPC. While dealing with the Misc. Appeal, the learned Lower Appellate Court discussed the relevant provisions relating to the scope of granting injunction at the earliest opportunity and accordingly, he requested the learned Trial Judge to complete the hearing of the injunction matter in one sitting without being influenced by the order of the Lower Appellate Court. But no interim order of injunction was granted. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiffs.