7 vs Gautam Mukharjee
2022 Latest Caselaw 5881 Cal

13 25.08. C.O. 1439 of 2022

AGM /RKB Ct Sk. Soleman & Ors 07 Vs Gautam Mukharjee

Mr. Surya Prosad Chattopadhyay, Mr. Sohail Tarafdar, ... For the petitioners.

Mr. Soumik Ganguly, Mr. Avil Kumar Das, Mr. Sourath Nandy, ... for the opposite party.

of 2021 of learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court

Purba Burdwan affirming the order of the trial Court

granting injunction is under challenge in this case.

Admittedly, the trial Court on the prayer of the

opposite party/plaintiff granted ad interim order of

injunction, which was finally disposed of after a

contested hearing granting injunction.

Against the order of injunction being granted by

the trial Court, an appeal was carried before the first

Lower Appellate Court being Misc Appeal No. 41 of

2021.

Mr. Surya Prosad Chattopdahyay, learned

advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that

petitioners are in possession of the suit property on the

strength of their title deed. It is contended that opposite

party/plaintiff upon producing a manufactured title

deed has claimed his right, title and interest over the

suit property, what is under possession of the

petitioners.

The title deed so produced by the opposite party

apparently bears many contradictions, and it has been

recorded by the appellate Court in the observation part

of the judgment.

In view of such injunction order being granted by

the trial Court, and subsequently affirmed by the

appellate Court, petitioners are in difficulty to repair

their property, what is extremely needed. Learned

advocate has only proposed for giving a liberty so that

pending decision of the suit, the property under the

possession of the defendant may be subjected to

repairing.

Mr. Soumil Ganguly, learned advocate appearing

for the opposite party/plaintiff disputes with the

submission advanced by the petitioners, alleging that

the appellate Court has gone into all the points raised

and observed that without holding the trial, the

controversy thus raised cannot be decided. The learned

Inspection Commission's report was also taken into

account by the first Lower Appellate Court.

Having considered the submission of both the

sides, it appears that both the Courts below were

satisfied in granting injunction after testing the case in

context with the principles applicable for granting

injunction. In a situation like this, the concurrent

findings thus reached being based on due appreciation

of the facts and circumstances presented, would remain

unaltered.

Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it

appears that there is no error manifest or apparent on

the face of the record, sufficient enough to reveal that

there has been a grave injustice or gross violation of

justice has been occasioned thereby.

The impugned order as such does not call for any

interference.

With this observation and direction, the revisional

application stands disposed of.

This would not, however, prevent the petitioners

to take recourse to the provisions of the law, if there be

any, for the protection of their properties taking

appropriate action in accordance with law.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if

applied for, be given to the parties on usual

undertakings.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)