PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. DELITE PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has taken out this application for eviction of a number of persons as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the petition from suit premises being No. 111 Park Street Calcutta, principally, on the ground these persons have taken possession in breach of the interim order of status quo and further disturbing possession of the Receiver appointed by this Court, during pendency of the suit.

(2.) The short fact of the case is that the plaintiff Bank entered into three agreements with the defendant No. 1 for purchase of five floors namely 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th of the aforesaid premises at an agreed price on or about 22nd August 1989. At that point of time the proposed building was not constructed. So, in terms of the agreements possession and/or occupation of the respective floors were to be delivered in phase-wise and gradually. The defendant No. 1, however in breach of the said agreement failed and neglected either to give possession of the respective floors as agreed upon or to execute and register necessary conveyance.

(3.) It appears from the records that defendant No. 1 was the promoter and defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were the owner of the land and old structure. It was the plea of the defendant No. 1 that the agreement was lawfully terminated. Thus the plaintiff took out an application for interlocutory relief for appointment of Receiver and for order of injunction. The defendant No. 1 had also taken out an application for rejection of the plaint filed in this suit. Both these two applications were heard together by Justice Shymal Kumar Sen (as His Lordship then was). From time to time various interim orders were passed by Justice Sen on the application of plaintiff. On 19th December 1994, Justice Sen was pleased to dispose of the application for rejection of the plaint without passing any order, however. His Lordship kept the point raised in that demurer application open to be tried at the time of hearing of the suit. As far as the application for interlocutory relief of the plaint is concerned the same was dealt with by His Lordship. On 6th December 1994 in that application the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 made submission that the defendant No. 1 had already sold and transferred 1st to 5th floors, roof and the car-parking space of the premises in question before institution of the suit and the possession had also been delivered to the re-' spective purchasers.