Sri Sanjay Surekha vs Raj Kumar Manna & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4011 Cal

   30.07.2021
Item No. 08
Ct. No. 04
PG
                                     F.M.A.938 of 2009
                                   (Via Video Conference)
                                               r



                                     Sri Sanjay Surekha
                                             Vs.
                                  Raj Kumar Manna & Ors.

                Mr. Animesh Das.............for appellant

                           Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf

                of appellant, who is plaintiff in the suit. He submits,

                by   impugned        order   dated    6th   July,   2007   the

                injunction application of his client was rejected on

                contest     but    without   costs.   His    submission,    in

                deciding the injunction application, learned Court

                below conducted mini trial and has in fact, decided

                controversy in the suit.

                           We have perused impugned judgment. We

                find that argument made here was made in the Court

                below as would appear from, inter alia, following set

                out below.

                                  "The ld. Advocate for the plff. has
                          submitted that the court cannot hold mini trial
                          at the stage of hearing of a petition for
                          temporary injunction. He relied upon one
                          decision reported in AIR 2001 S.C.. 2365........"


                           On careful perusal of impugned order, in

                light of said submission made before that Court and

                here, we find, the lower Court had said, inter alia, as

                follows:
                    2




               "As per the above 'Angikarpatras the
       plff. was permitted to sell the property on
       behalf of the defdt. nos. 2 to 4. Prima facie it
       appears from para 2 of the first page of the
       said Angikarpatra that the above defdts. have
       only consented to negotiate the sell on behalf of
       the defdts. and the plff. has appointed to act on
       behalf of the defdts........."


                         ..........

"Primafacie it appears that there is no concluded contract regarding the sell of the property in favour of the plff. The plff. has failed to produce any document to show that the defdts. no. 1 approached to the plff. to procure 120 Bighas of land as Broker..........."

Order sheet reveals appellant obtained

adjournment on 15th and 22nd July, 2021. Mr. Das

submits, he sought to ascertain position of the suit

but he has not yet been able to do so.

In view of prima facie finding of the lower

Court, of no concluded contract being reason for

rejecting the injunction application as far back as on

6th July, 2007 and appellant's inability to even

inform as to the progress of the suit thereafter, we

find that no case has been made out for admitting the

appeal. Appellant can find the relief claimed in

prosecuting the suit.

F.M.A. 938 of 2009 is dismissed.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)