AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. P. Routray, J
The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Heard Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Appellant.
None appears for the Respondent despite a set of names is indicated in the cause list.
It is submitted by Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the Appellant that while admitting the Appeal, learned Additional District Judge has directed for stay of further proceeding of the execution proceeding. But subsequently on the application of the plaintiff-respondent, said Appellate Court has passed a further interim order directing to maintain status quo over the suit property with direction to the defendant-appellant to furnish an affidavit along with an undertaking that she will not make any further construction, if any, and she will not claim any equity regarding any construction made during pendency of the appeal.
As per Mr.Bhuyan, both interim orders would not sustain at the same time and the learned Additional District Judge without application of judicial mind passed such further interim order though the application for temporary injunction at the behest of the plaintiff-respondent is not maintainable before the First Appellate Court.
Considering the limited nature of the appeal, the same can be disposed of at the stage of admission and the substantial question to be decided is that, whether present impugned order dated 16th March, 2022 would sustainable in view of the earlier interim order dated 15th February, 2020 passed by the First Appellate Court.
Since the other side is absent, the matter could not be heard finally today.
List on 17th November, 2022 when both parties are directed to come ready for final hearing.
I.A.No.155 of 2022
As an interim, it is directed that operation of the impugned order 16th March, 2022 under Annexure-4 shall remain stayed till 17th November, 2022.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
……………………………