Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sasanka Sekhar Khanra vs Debasish Khanra & Ors on 25 April, 2022
09 25.04.
AGM
Ct
C.O. 500 of 2022
Sasanka Sekhar Khanra
Vs
Debasish Khanra & Ors
Ms. Indrani Pal, ... For the petitioner.
The subject matter of challenge in this
revisional application is against the appellate
judgment in Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2016 (Regn. No.
Misc Appeal No. 06 of 2015) affirming the judgment
and order dated 28th September, 2015, passed by
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court,
Contai, Purba Medinipur, dismissing the J. Misc Case
under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
Ms. Indrani Pal, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioner/defendant submits that after being
emboldened by the order of ad interim order of
injunction, the opposite parties/plaintiffs indulged in
collecting building materials in some portion of the
suit property, mentioned in the schedule to the
plaint, for the purpose of raising construction in
violation of the ad interim order of injunction. Since
there has been violation of ad interim order of
injunction, the petitioner/defendant filed an
application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of
Civil Procedure, for the desired relief as provided
under Code of Civil Procedure.
Civil Judge (Senior Division) referred above in
connection with J Misc Case No 02 of 2014,
dismissed the alleged violation of injunction order,
upon collection of as many as 6 witnesses, and also
considering several documents, marked as exhibits.
The appeal was then carried against the
decision of the J. Misc Case No. 02 of 2014 by
preferring Misc Appeal No. 24 of 2016, before the
learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track I,
Contai, Purba Medinipur. The First Lower Appellate
Court dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the
Trial Court.
Learned advocate for the petitioner is fair
enough to submit that in the meantime, the
application for temporary injunction has already been
disposed of, and against which there has been no
appeal carried uptil date.
To show the exact position of the suit property,
there has been local inspection of the suit property.
At the time of holding local inspection, learned
advocate representing petitioner/defendant was
present, and he raised objection with regard to the
alleged violation of the injunction order.
Till date, according to the learned advocate for
the petitioner, the report of the learned inspection
commissioner has not yet been accepted.
The only contention expressed by the petitioner
is against the alleged violation of ad interim order of
injunction by the plaintiffs, who were already
favoured with the ad interim order of injunction.
After the dismissal of Misc Appeal, there is
hardly anything left to reveal the express perversity in
the impugned order, occasioning thereby the failure
of justice, without which there is hardly any scope for
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
However, when the report of the local inspection
commission has not yet been accepted, and when at
the time of holding local inspection, leaned advocate
representing the defendant raised specific objection
with regard to the alleged violation of the ad interim
order of injunction, the revisional application may be
disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to raise
such points, now raised at the time of acceptance of
learned inspection commissioner's report. If any such
point, as disclosed hereinabove, is raised, the same
may be resolved by the Court below in accordance
with the provisions of law, providing sufficient
opportunity of hearing to either of the parties to this
case.
With this observation and direction, the
revisional application stands disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on usual
undertakings.
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)
