SATYA NARAYAN MAITY Vs. SUNIRMALENDU MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the petitioner in this Rule which is directed against an order dated 14-11-72 passed by Shri A. C. Acharyya, Munsif, First Court, Contai in Title Suit No. 88 of 1972, allowing the plaintiff-opposite party's prayer and directing the defendant-petitioner to unlock and make over the documents and materials kept under lock and key, as mentioned in the petition, upon receipt and in presence of the lawyers of both the sides.

(2.) The facts leading on to the Rule can be put in a short compass. A dispute arose between the defendant, Shri Satya Narayan Maity, stated to be the permanent Head Master of the Halud-Bari High School, and the Managing Committee thereof. The Managing Committee by a resolution dated 1-3-72 issued a charge-sheet against the defendant, suspending him and directing him to make over charge to the Secretary. The plaintiff, Shri Sunirmalendu Maity, stated to be the Officiating Head Master, filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 88 of 1972, in the Court of the learned Munsif, First Court, Contai for permanent injunction and also applied for a temporary injunction therein for restraining the latter from entering the school compound and interfering with the function of the plaintiff. An objection was filed by the defendant but ultimately on 18-4-72, the learned Mun-sif passed an order for temporary injunction. On 25-9-72 an application was filed by the plaintiff praying for a direction on the defendant to hand over the documents mentioned in the Schedule of the petition on the ground 'that those were kept under lock and key, in violation of the order of injunction. An objection was filed on 30-9-72 by the defendant, stating inter alia that the room locked by him was further locked by the Secretary on 8-3-72, before the institution of the suit; and that the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Midnapore by his Memo. No. 1433 dated 30-5-72 had informed the Sub-divisional Officer, Contai that the plaintiff is not recognised by the Department as the Officiating Head Master and instructed him to preserve the papers of the school under lock and key as before, till the appointment of an administrator, who will take over charge of the papers with police help. A second application was filed in this behalf by the plaintiff on 3-10-72 and this was also objected to on merits. An application was also filed by the defendant with a prayer to call for the Memo. No. 1433 dated 30-5-72 from the Court of the Sub-Divisional Olficer for a proper decision in the matter. The prayer was allowed and the Memo. No. 1433 was called for on 10-11-72. A third application followed on 10-11-72, which was the date fixed for the hearing of the original application, adding to and supplementing the original applications filed on 25-9-72 and 3-10-72. No opportunity however was given, though prayed for, to the defendant to file his objection to this third petition and ultimately on 14-11-72 the learned Munsif allowed the prayer of the plaintiff. This order has been impugned by the defendant and forms the subject-matter of the present Rule. An ad interim stay of operation of the order was granted but further proceedings in the Title Suit were not stayed. An Affidavit-in-Opposi-tion, affirmed on 18-12-72 and an Affidavit-in-Reply thereto, affirmed on 22-12-72, were filed by the respective parties.

(3.) The contentions of Mr. Swadesh Bhusan Bhunia, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioner are broadly two-fold -- the first head relating to a contravention of the principles of natural justice and of procedure; and the second one relating to merits. Mr. Bhu-nia's contentions catalogued under the first head are :