High CourtsDIVISION BENCH(2017) 03 CAL CK 0049

Hanelab Private Limited & Anr. vs Md. Atiqur Rahaman & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 15 March 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Asha Arora
CASE NUMBER
1125 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 514 words
1.

By the impugned order dated 9th August, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Alipore in Title Suit No. 199 of 2016, the plaintiffs'' prayer for ad interim injunction was allowed in part.

2.

The instant first miscellaneous appeal is directed against that part of the impugned order by which the other relief by way of ad interim injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs, was refused by the learned Trial Court at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants.

3.

We are informed by Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the defendant/respondent No.1 that even the ad interim order of injunction which was passed by the learned Trial Court, was subsequently vacated by the learned Trial Court.

4.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants submits that his clients have already filed an application for re-imposition of the ad interim order which stood vacated subsequently before the learned Trial Court and the said application is still awaiting consideration before the learned Trial Judge.

5.

Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that all the parties are now before this Court and they have agreed to participate in the hearing of the plaintiffs'' application for temporary injunction, we without examining the legality of the impugned order at this stage, feel that justice will be subserved if a time bound order is passed by this Court for disposal of the plaintiffs'' application for temporary injunction by the learned Trial Court.

6.

Accordingly, we direct the plaintiffs/appellants to supply a copy of the plaintiffs'' application for temporary injunction to the learned advocate-on-record of the defendant/respondent No.1 herein by tomorrow.

7.

Leave is granted to the defendant/respondent No.1 to file affidavit-in-opposition to the plaintiffs'' application for temporary injunction by 5th April, 2017, reply if any, be filed by the plaintiffs/appellants by 19th April, 2017.

8.

The learned Trial Judge is requested to make all endeavour to dispose of the plaintiffs'' application for temporary injunction preferably by middle of May, 2017 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

9.

It is however, further clarified that in case the plaintiffs approach the learned Trial Court to dispose of the plaintiffs'' application for re-imposition of the injunction order which stood vacated, the learned Trial Court will consider such prayer of the plaintiffs and dispose of the same in accordance with law upon notice to the parties.

10.

Before parting with, we also make it clear that in the event any of the parties want to rely upon the Special Officer''s report which is submitted before this Court, reasonable opportunity will be granted to the other parties for dealing with the Special Officer''s report by way of affidavit.

11.

Let one set of Special Officer''s report which is submitted before this Court, be transmitted to the learned Trial Court which will form part of the record of the suit.

12.

Both the appeal and the application are, thus, disposed of.

13.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.