Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Suparna Ghosh and others

The order impugned dated December 20, 2016 has been assailed in both parts by the rival parties. Two applications were disposed of by such order: the defendants'' application for an inquiry into the appropriate valuation of the suit was declined and the plaintiff''s application for police help was allowed but the plaintiff submits that the directions have not been issued to the D.C.(South Port), but to the local police station despite the plaintiff''s assertion that the local police station was not inclined to attach any seriousness to the matter.

The suit is for declaration, ostensibly in respect of a shoproom, but the schedule to the plaint and the body of the plaint indicate that the plaintiff claims to be the sole proprietor of a business carried on from the suit premises though the first defendant claims that he is a partner of a partnership firm run from the suit premises by the plaintiff, the first defendant and the plaintiff''s husband.

The schedule to the plaint not only indicates the boundary of the suit premises but also refers to the stock-in-trade at the relevant shop. According to the defendants, the stock-in-trade was shown in the balance-sheet of the proprietorship concern for the year ended March 31, 2013 to be of value in excess of Rs.35 lakh. The defendants assert that once the stock-in-trade was also included as part of the schedule and the plaintiff seeks protection thereof, the suit has been grossly undervalued.

According to the defendants, caveats were lodged in several courts and the suit was deliberately undervalued to dodge the relevant courts and carry the action to a Civil Judge (Senior Division). The plaintiff claims, on the other hand, that no ground is made out for the injunction being enjoyed by the plaintiff being disturbed at this stage.

In view of the reliefs that have been claimed and the fact that the plaintiff seeks an adjudication not only as to the shoproom but also as to the persons entitled to manage the business, the nature of the declaration sought is somewhat larger than to merely protect the plaintiff''s possession of the shoproom. Since the stock-in-trade has been included in the schedule to the plaint and the reliefs claimed cover such schedule, the valuation under Section 7(iv)(b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 may be erroneous. In all fairness, is must be recorded that the plaintiff has not sought to resist a direction for an inquiry being undertaken.

As to the plaintiff''s grievance, it is evident that the trial court was satisfied that the subsisting injunction was required to be implemented. However, inasmuch as it was the plaintiff''s case before the trial court that the local police station may not be helpful, the trial court should have directed the Deputy Commissioner exercising jurisdiction over the area to take appropriate steps in terms of the subsisting order.

Accordingly, the order impugned dated December 20, 2016 is modified on both counts. The defendants'' application pertaining to the improper valuation of the suit is disposed of by requesting the trial court to undertake an inquiry to assess the appropriate court fees that ought to be paid by the plaintiff. As to the other part of the order pertaining to the implementation of the subsisting injunction, the Deputy Commissioner of Kolkata Police, South Port, is requested to render adequate assistance to the plaintiff to ensure that the order of injunction passed in the suit is not violated.

The trial court is also requested to ensure that the injunction application together with the defendants'' vacating application are taken up as expeditiously as possible and disposed of, preferably, within six weeks of the date of deposit of an authenticated copy of this order. After the order is pronounced, it is submitted on behalf of the defendants that the defendants will not go near the suit premises or the shoproom as long as the stock-in-trade and other material thereat are protected till the disposal of the injunction application.

In view of such prayer, the parties are restrained from removing any goods or material from the shoproom till the disposal of the injunction application. CO 51 of 2017 and CO 76 of 2017 are disposed of, but without any order as to costs.