The Court emphasized the importance of expediting the disposal of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction and clarified the conditions for the plaintiff's participation in the tender process.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 9 dated 11th July, 2016 passed by learned Judge, VIIIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 198 of 2016 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.

2. By the impugned order, plaintiff's prayer for extension of ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge on 15th February, 2016 was rejected by the learned Trial Judge as a result, the ad interim order of injunction which was passed by the learned Trial Judge on 15th February, 2016 stood vacated.

3. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After admission of the appeal, on an application for interim injunction being CAN 7602 of 2016 filed by the appellant, an interim order was passed by this Court by restraining the Kolkata Port Trust authority from proceeding with the tender notice issued vide NIT No. KoPT/KDS/LND/11-2016 relating to grant of long term lease without renewal option in respect of Plot No. A56 as mentioned in the said notice inviting tender until further order. It was further clarified that the interim order which was so passed will not prevent the Kolkata Port Trust authority from proceeding with the tender process which relates to other plots of land mentioned in the said notice inviting tender.

4. The Kolkata Port Trust authority was also directed to keep the appellant's earnest money of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lac only) which was forfeited by the Kolkata Port Trust authority, in a separate bank account to be opened by the Kolkata Port Trust authority, with any nationalised bank in a short term fixed deposit within two weeks from the date of the said order.

5. In course of hearing of the appeal and the application for interim injunction filed in connection therewith, we are informed by Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondents that pursuant to the direction passed by this Court on 5th December, 2016, a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lac only) was invested by his clients in a short-term deposit of 45 days with Punjab & Sind Bank, NS Road Branch, Kolkata earning interest @ 5.60% per annum with effect from 19th December, 2016. We are also informed by him that the said deposit stood matured on 2nd February, 2017 and thereafter the said sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lac only) together with interest accrued thereon amounting to Rs. 50,28,117/- again has been reinvested in another short-term deposit of 45 days earning interest @ 5.5% per annum with effect from 2nd February, 2017 in State Bank of India, Specialized Institutional Banking, Kolkata Samriddhi Bhavan, 4th Floor, 1, Strand Road, Kolkata-700 001.

6. The letter written by an officer of Kolkata Port Trust authority intimating the aforesaid fact to his learned advocate-on-record is also placed before this Court. Let the said letter dated 17th February, 2017 be kept with the record.

7. Having regard to the fact that the parties have already appeared before the learned Trial Judge and they have filed their respective affidavits in connection with the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction and the said application for temporary injunction is ready for hearing before the learned Trial Judge, we feel that justice will be sub-served if, instead of disposing of this appeal on merit after discussing the merit of the rival claims of the parties in detail, we dispose of this appeal by requesting the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on merit at an early date.

8. As such, we request the learned Trail Judge to dispose of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction as early as possible, but preferably by the end of April 2017.

9. Having regard to the fact that the claim amount of the plaintiff/appellant in the suit has already been secured by way of deposit of an identical amount with the nationalised bank