AMITAVA DE BHOWMICK Vs. BABLU KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even after the Court of Appeal below passed an order of status quo to be maintained in respect of a suit premises, the petitioner has come up with this revisional application saying that he is still aggrieved by the said order.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner entered into an agreement for development of the property owned by the proforma defendants. The principal defendant allegedly approached him to purchase a self-contained flat in the proposed newly constructed building and, according to the petitioner, paid a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 only in cash for which no receipt was granted. Subsequently, they managed to get an agreement for sale of the self-contained flat signed by the petitioner on the pretext that it would help him to obtain a loan from the bank or from other financial institutions.

(3.) The plaint case proceeds that on a good faith the signature was put on the said agreement but in fact no money as and by way of advance was ever paid. The petitioner was pressurizing him to pay the said amount and while returning from his factory he was intercepted by the defendant/opposite party with six or seven men who threatened by showing the weapon and forced the petitioner to sign on three to four blank papers. However, due to the intervention of the passers by or the inmates of the locality the petitioner could manage to get away therefrom and lodged a complaint with the police authorities. A writ petition was filed before this Court for inaction on the part of the police to take appropriate steps. The petitioner alleged in the plaint that the said defendant is frequently coming and creating disturbances in peaceful enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the suit property.