GOPENDU CHOUDHURY Vs. SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D.C. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1. None appears on call for respondent No. 2 i.e. the Silchar Development Authority.

(2.) This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC is directed against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 30/2010 arising out of T.S. No. 33/2010. By the said impugned order, the prayer for ad-interim injunction was rejected by vacating the order of status-quo passed on 23.07.2010.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the present appellant had instituted T.S. No. 33/2010, for declaration, recovery of possession, cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction. In the plaint, it is projected that one Musstt. Fatima Begum Mazumdar, inter-alia, sold the suit land described in Schedule-I in favour of one Sri Runu Roy and others. The said purchaser i.e. Runu Roy & others had transferred right, title, interest and possession of the suit land to the appellant herein. It is claimed that the vacant possession of the suit land was also delivered to the appellant on the date of registration of such sale. The suit land described in Schedule-I was duly mutated in the name of appellant and thereafter, the appellant applied for permission to construct boundary wall over his land from the Silchar Development Authority (respondent No.2) and thereafter, obtained permission for construction of ground floor semi RCC building which was later on modified with another construction permission for RCC building and proceeded with the construction. The appellant also procured trade licence from the Silchar Municipal Board (respondent No.1) to conduct business of hardware and also obtained electricity, water and telephone connection. However, the Silchar Municipal Board (respondent No.1), alleging right and ownership of the suit land by engaging men and occupants, dispossessed the appellant from the suit land and occupied the land described in Schedule-I of the plaint. Later on, the construction permission issued in favour of the appellant was cancelled by the Silchar Development Authority (respondent No. 2). Alleging illegal eviction, the appellant had challenged the action of the respondent No. 1 by filing writ petition before this Court, which was numbered as WP(C) No. 2817/2010. The respondent No. 1 also instituted a suit i.e. T.S. No. 533/2010 on 20.07.2010. Along with the suit, the said Misc. Case No. 30/2010 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed, inter-alia, praying for ad-interim injunction, restraining the respondent No. 1 from changing the nature and feature of the suit land by way of construction, etc. and/or to induct any persons thereon in any manner. The records reveal that Misc. Case No. 31/2010 was filed for granting interim status-quo till the next date. Alleging breach/disobedience of the status-quo order passed on 207.2010 in Misc. Case No. 31/2010, a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC was filed, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 32/2010.