JITENDRA NATH MUKHERJEE Vs. COMMISSIONERS OF BADURIA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule I had issued on August 24, 1966, under Section 115 of the Procedure Code, 5 of 1908, at the instance of the first defendant, Jitendra Nath Mukherji, calling upon the plaintiff opposite party, the Commissioners of Baduria Municipality, (simply "the municipality" hereafter, for short), to show cause why an appellate order dated August 20, 1966, which confirmed the order dated July 25, 1966, of the trial court, appointing a receiver in a pending suit, should not be set aside.

(2.) The suit by the municipality is a suit for, amongst others, for three declarations. One, the agreement executed by and between the petitioner Jitendra, on one hand, and the then chairman of the municipality, Nandalal Sarkhel by name, on the other,--defendants both--,on April 22, 1965, and put to registration on April 24, 1965, touching a hat of the municipality, is collusive, illegal, void etc. Two, on the foot of such an agreement, the petitioner Jitendra, the first defendant in the suit, has acquired no title to the hat in controversy. Three, the agreement aforesaid is not binding on the municipality.

(3.) Should the municipality get the first declaration, that the impugned agreement is void, the two other declarations follow as a matter of course. Leaving aside such prolixity, the other important reliefs, the municipality prays the court for, may be noticed. 'Confirm our possession of the disputed hat by collecting the tolls, as we are doing'-- is one such relief 'Restrain Jitendra by a permanent injunction from interfering with our possession'--is another relief.