AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present challenge is at the behest of the first defendant in a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, permanent injunction, damages and ancillary reliefs. The moot question canvassed by the petitioner is that, the trial court might have acted without jurisdiction in granting police help to implement an injunction order passed by the trial court, initially ex parte, but extended thereafter from time to time, on certain occasions in the presence of the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is settled by two judgments passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court that, to implement an interim order, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be resorted to as a matter of course, since the provision of Order XXI Rule 32, read with Section 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are attracted in such a situation. The two judgments cited in this regard are as follows:
(i) 2012 (1) CHN (CAL) 300 (Joydev Das vs. Khandubala Das) and
(ii) 2012 (3) CHN (CAL) 197 (Rameshwar Traders (P) Ltd. vs. Joshi Realtors and Developers (P) Ltd).
It was held in both the said judgements, that, in the event the inherent power of the court was exercised for implementing an interim order of injunction, certain yardsticks had to be applied. Such yardsticks are as follows:
“…….. in appropriate cases where
(i) facts are not in dispute, and
(ii) the Court is satisfied that a party bound by an order of injunction has violated and/or disobeyed the same,
(iii) thereby causing grave and serious injury to his adversary, and
(iv) ends of justice demand the Court’s interference for granting immediate relief to the party suffering the injury, that recourse to section 151 of the Code may be had for setting things right.”
It was further held by the learned Single Judge that if the allegations made in such an application for implementation, under Section 151 of the Code, were denied by the adversary, it was obligatory for the trial court to allow the parties to lead evidence for arriving at a definite conclusion on the rival claims.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that the learned trial judge, in the present case, did not adhere to any of the aforesaid yardsticks while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/opposite parties argues that there are previous judgments laying down ratio contrary to the judgments cited.
This apart, it is submitted that there was virtually no denial, to the allegations made by the opposite parties in the application for implementation of injunction, in the written objection thereto by the present petitioner. In this context, certain paragraphs of the said written objection are placed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.
While considering the ratio of the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to comment on the propriety of the same, since, being rendered by a co-ordinate bench, such judgments are binding on this Court. Judicial decorum demands that this Court goes by the ratio laid down by a co-ordinate bench and, as such, the said ratio ought to be followed in the present case also.
However, on a perusal of the written objection of the present petitioner to the application for implementation of injunction order, it is evident that the ratio laid down in the cited judgments is not attracted in the present case at all. The written objection contains, at best, evasive denial. The entire tenor of the written objection, if read as a whole, indicates that petitioner had no intention to comply with the injunction order passed by the trial court, on various pretexts, including the likelihood of poor “flesh merchants” being adversely affected and the alleged endeavour of the petitioner to obtain necessary permission to run the slaughterhouse-in-question.
Certain relevant paragraphs of the said written objection are reproduced below:
“10. That the statement made in para 3 of the ‘said petition’ is false, frivolous and concocted one and as such denied. Your petitioners state that it is strongly denied that the plaintiffs are the owners of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property or that the plaintiffs used to run slaughtering business on the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property on the contrary your petitioners along with other owners of premises no. Q- 605, Slaughter House Road (suit properties) are running the slaughtering business till passing of the order by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal Bench Delhi, and presently on the prayer of your petitioners and other owners of slaughter house the Govt. of West Bengal and Kolkata Municipal Corporation are co-operating with your petitioners to establish modern abettor and ETP Plant which is the precondition to run the slaughter house as per direction of the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal Bench Delhi. Your petitioners state that the plaintiffs have no right to put any lock and key of the main gate of the ‘B’ Schedule property hence question of putting pad lock by the plaintiffs cannot or does not arise at all.
That the statement made in para 4 of the ‘said petition’ is not admitted as true and as such denied. Your petitioners state that the plaintiffs never put any padlock in the main gate of the suit property nor the padlock has been break open by your petitioners at any point of time. Your petitioners state that since the starting of the slaughtering house your petitioners and other owners are running their slaughtering business which your petitioners are trying to continue by taking effective measures following the guidelines of the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal Bench Delhi wherein the state govt. and the K.M.C. are co-operating with your petitioners and other owners of slaughter House on their prayer for greater public interest and bread and butter of large number of flesh merchants involve in slaughtering business. Hour petitioners state that prayer for implementation of the exparte uncontested order of injunction by employing local police authority cannot be passed prior to contested disposal of the injunction petition filed by the plaintiffs. Thus the contrary statement made in para under reference is denied and disputed.
That the statement made in para 5 of the ‘said petition’ is false and as such denied. Your petitioners state that till date the plaintiffs have not yet complied the provisions of Order-39 Rule 3(a) and (b) of the C.P. Code and all the defendants have not yet appeared and filed their Written objection before the Ld. Court.
That the statement made in para 6 of the ‘said petition’ is not admitted as true and as such denied. Your petitioners state that your petitioners are law abiding citizen of India and your petitioners have due respect on the law of the land which compelled your petitioners and poor flesh merchants who are the owners of the slaughter house to take effective steps as directed by the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal Bench Delhi by making prayer before the state govt. and K.M.C. to set up modern abettor and ETP Plant. Your petitioners further states that a large number of people are involve in slaughtering business which is the only source of their bread and butter which cannot be stopped in such way and the same may kindly be considered sympathetically. Thus the contrary statement made in para under reference is denied and disputed.
That the statement made in para 7 and 8 of the ‘said petition’ are misconceived, false and manufactured one and as such denied. Your petitioners state lodging complaint before the local police authority and other authority are only to draw the attention of the Ld. Court to get an order on the local police authority so that the plaintiffs can use the police authority/local administration at their whims and choice which is not at all permitted in law when there is specific machinery of the Ld. Court to execute it’s order and not only that there is specific provisions of law for violation of the injunction order passed by the ld. Court but without adopting any of the method prescribed in the C.P. Code the plaintiffs only to harass your petitioners and other poor flesh merchants by using the police authority have prayed before the Ld. Court for direction on the O/C Rajabagan Police Station to carry out the Ld. Court’s order and the ‘said petition’ thus being meritless and harassing one requires to be rejected in limini with exemplary cost to the petitioners”.
It is, thus, evident that the petitioner relies on technicalities to evade the effect of the injunction order initially passed by the trial court on February 07, 2018, which restrained the defendants, including the present petitioner, from slaughtering any animal in the B-schedule property.
In such view of the matter, even without going into the ratio laid down in the cited judgements, it is evident that there was practically no denial worth the name to the allegations made by the opposite parties in their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for implementation of the injunction order.
Hence, the impugned order need not be interfered with, having arrived at a correct conclusion, although suffering from some paucity of reasoning.
Accordingly, in the light of the observations made above, C.O. No. 3285 of 2018 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the order of police help passed on July 05, 2018 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Alipore, District-South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 107 of 2018. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.