AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
The present review application has been filed on the ground that, on the date on which the order under review was passed, due to bona fide
inadvertence, the petitioner had failed to point out that the miscellaneous appeal, bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2017, which was directed
to be decided expeditiously, already stood disposed of.
This Court had also extended the interim order of injunction granted earlier by this Court till the disposal of the said appeal, along with such direction
for expeditious hearing.
It is submitted that this was an error on the face of the record, since the appeal itself was not pending on the said date. However, it is submitted on
behalf of the petitioners that the spirit of the said order ought to be retained by directing the interim injunction granted by this Court to be extended till
disposal of the suit.
Learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties argues, on the other hand, that the said order under review was passed consciously by this Court
by granting injunction till disposal of the miscellaneous appeal in view of the fact that the miscellaneous appeal could be heard out expeditiously.
However, the said ad interim order could not be transposed to the suit pending in the trial court, merely for the asking, particularly on a review
application.
It is seen, upon hearing both sides, from the order under review that the premise of extending the injunction till disposal of the miscellaneous appeal
was that this Court was prima facie satisfied about the merits of the review application and had extended the order of injunction initially passed on July
2, 2019 on September 5, 2019, restraining the opposite parties, their men and agents by an order of injunction from further transferring, alienating
and/or encumbering the suit property in favour of the third parties in any manner.
The order was passed on the basis of the submission of learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that there was no use in keeping the matter
pending, rather the purpose of justice would be sub-served if the interim order was extended and the appeal was directed to be heard out by the
appellate court within a limited period, of course, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the appeal.
Although, in view of the current submission made by the contesting opposite parties that such concession is no longer available against the contesting
opposite parties, yet, the ratio of the order under review, that this Court had prima facie been satisfied as to the injunction being granted and that was
the reason for extending the same, still remains.
However, it is now undisputed that the miscellaneous appeal itself was already disposed of on the date of passing of the order under review and the
revisional application itself had been preferred, along with the connected application for extension of interim order, against the dismissal of the
miscellaneous appeal itself.
As such, since the matter was disposed of on the mistaken notion that the miscellaneous appeal was still pending and on the premise, as was fairly
submitted by learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties that, injunction may be extended till disposal of the miscellaneous appeal, the order
dated November 4, 2019 loses its validity. More so, the merits of the revisional application as against the order impugned therein, whereby the
miscellaneous appeal itself was dismissed, was not considered by this Court at all.
As such, in all fairness, the order dated November 4, 2019 ought to be recalled and C. O. No. 2059 of 2019, as well as CAN 8248 of 2019 ought to be
heard afresh.
Accordingly, RVW 282 of 2019 is disposed of along with the connected CAN 12290 of 2019, thereby recalling the order dated November 4, 2019
passed by this Court in C. O. No. 2059 of 2019 with CAN 8248 of 2019.
There will be no order as to costs.
Re : C. O. No. 2059 of 2019.
Let CAN 8248 of 2019 appear along with the revisional application under the heading ‘extension of interim order’ on January 14, 2020.