AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Re: CAN 10770 of 2017
This is an application at the instance of the opposite party seeking direction upon the Special Officer appointed in the instant revisional application to remove the padlock put on the main entrance door as well as the other portion of the premises.
Admittedly a proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is filed by the petitioner claiming restitution of possession. The said proceeding is yet to be disposed of finally. Since the proceeding is taking a longer time, an application was taken out for temporary mandatory injunction upon the opposite party to hand over the possession of the subject property immediately.
An order of refusal to pass such temporary mandatory injunction was challenged before this Court by filing a Miscellaneous Appeal. The Division Bench, who entertained the said Miscellaneous Appeal, appointed Mr. Asish Kumar Roy as Special Officer to inspect the property in question and submit the report.
It is not in dispute that several orders came to be passed by the Division Bench and ultimately the Special Officer put the padlock not only on the disputed subject flat but also on the other portion of the larger premises. Subsequently it was detected that the appeal is not maintainable before the Division Bench and by virtue of an order the same is converted into a revision.
The present application is taken out by the opposite party alleging that the dispute is restricted to a portion of the first floor of the building and, therefore, the Special Officer cannot deny the access to her in respect of the other portion thereto.
In fact the Special Officer has put the padlock on the main entrance door of the building and naturally nobody is allowed to enter or get access thereto.
Since the subject dispute relates to a portion of the building, it is unjustified that the opposite party, who is admittedly a landlady/owner of the premises, is deprived to use and enjoy the other portion of the building.
It transpires in course of hearing that there are serious allegations made against the opposite party by the petitioner that the articles, which are lying inside the suit premises, have been wrongfully and illegally removed.
The aforesaid contention has been denied by the opposite party and it is also not in dispute that at the time of inspection the Special Officer did not find any article inside the suit premises.
To eradicate any future allegation to come, this Court directs the Special Officer to inspect the other portion of the building in presence of the respective parties or their counsels and submit the report before this Court on the returnable date.
If any article is found inside the other portion of the building than the subject premises and claimed by the petitioner, the same would be identified by the Special Officer and be allowed to be kept in the custody of the opposite party, who shall not deal with the same in any manner whatsoever until further order of this Court.
The Special Officer shall remove all the padlocks put at the said building except the padlock put on the main entrance of the suit premises immediately after the completion of inspection.
It goes without saying that the opposite party shall allow the access to the petitioner up to the meter room position at the suit premises for the purpose of recording the reading until further order.
The remuneration of the Special Office is assessed at 500 GMs to be shared equally by the respective parties.
With the above observations, the application, being CAN 10770 of 2017, is disposed of.
Let the revisional application along with other two applications be listed on 20th February, 2018.
Let a photostat plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the Special Officer for necessary compliance.