SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4113

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J
Shri Sayan Datta – Appellant
Versus
Amit Ranjan Kumar & Ors. – Respondent
C.O. 2604 of 2024 | Miscellaneous Appeal No.84 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Kishore Mukherjee, Mr. Ahitagni Dey
For the Respondents:

The court mandated expedited resolution of an appeal concerning property title and injunction while addressing procedural delays.

Headnote:The judgment analyzes the application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, rejecting the ad interim injunction on procedural grounds. The court finds the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal within four months, emphasizing the urgency due to third-party property transfer and potential future applications. The court orders expedite resolution yet places no costs on the parties involved.

Mr. Kishore Mukherjee Mr. Ahitagni Dey …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No.3 dated July 5, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, District-North 24-Parganas in Miscellaneous Appeal No.84 of 2024.

The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In such a suit the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned trial judge by an order dated June 28, 2024 rejected the ad interim prayer for injunction.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal being Miscellaneous Appeal No.84 of 2024 and prayed for an ad interim order of injunction. The learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, District-North 24-Parganas by an order dated July 5, 2024 refused to pass an ad interim order of injunction.

This matter is pending before this Court since July, 2024.

However, considering the fact that the learned trial judge and the learned judge of the First Appellate Court refused to pass an ad interim order of injunction, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the learned judge of the First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of miscellaneous appeal expeditiously.

CO 2604 of 2024 stands disposed of by requesting the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, District-North 24-Parganas to make an endeavour to see that the Miscellaneous Appeal No.84 of 2024 is disposed of as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date when the miscellaneous appeal is made ready for hearing.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in the meantime the bank has transferred the property to a third party and for impleading such party an application being CAN 2/2025 has been filed. The application being CAN 2/2025 stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to take out an appropriate application in the miscellaneous appeal.

CAN 1/2024 stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to take out an appropriate application in the miscellaneous appeal for selfsame reliefs.

There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top