AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the applications for vacating an ad interim order of injunction passed in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants was allowed.
Such applications for vacating were filed by respondent nos.1 to 4, who claim to be owners of the property, as well as by the other respondents, who are developers.
During arguments, learned counsel for the parties submit that a status quo order is subsisting at present in connection with a different matter, which is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in respect of the subject property.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellants, on instruction , submits that the ends of justice would be sub-served if the temporary injunction application is itself directed to be disposed of expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the respondents agree to the said suggestion in principle.
We are also apprised that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for rejection of the plaint in the suit is also pending before the learned Trial Judge at the behest of the respondent nos.1 to 4.
In view of the above, we dispose of FMAT 482 of 2025 with a direction on the plaintiffs/appellants to file their written objection to the application for rejection of plaint within a week from date.
Similarly, the defendants/respondents shall file their respective written objections to the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if not already filed, also within a week from date in the trial court.
The learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code first and immediately thereafter, subject to the outcome of the same, the pending application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, both preferably within four weeks from the date of filing of the written objections as directed above.
We make it clear that while deciding the applications under Order VII Rule 11 as well as Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, the learned Trial Judge shall not be unduly influenced in any manner by any of the observations made in the impugned order and shall decide the said applications independently in accordance with law.
CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of consequentially.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
I agree.