A judge must operate within their assigned jurisdiction; any order made outside this scope is void.

1. The appeal is taken up for hearing by treating it as included in the day's cause list.

2. The appeal arises out of an order passed by the trial Court on April 6, 1989 in C.R. No. 713(W) of 1988. The appeal raises the question as to the power, authority and jurisdiction of the trial Court (Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee) to pass the said order.

3. The appellant (Sohanlal Baid) is the original Writ Petitioner. The eighth respondent herein initiated a proceeding against the appellant and a few others including Chhaganlal Baid and Kundanmall Baid, under S.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah, 24 - Parganas (South), seeking investigation in respect of an alleged offence punishable under S.380 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Court directed the fifth respondent herein to inquire into the complaint and to submit a report. The case was thereupon registered as Chitpur Police Station Case No. 94 dated April 23, 1986. The said proceeding gave rise to three separate Writ Petitions with identical prayers to the effect, inter alia, that the investigation and the consequential proceeding pending in the Court below be recalled, rescinded, cancelled or revoked and that further proceedings be stayed. These Writ Petitions were filed individually by the appellant and Chhaganlal Baid and Kundanmall Baid. In the Writ Petition (C.R. 12852(W) of 1987) filed by Chhaganlal Baid an interim order of injunction was passed on April 28, 1988 to the effect that the police authorities would be at liberty to proceed with the investigation but would not file the final report without the leave of the Court. However, in the other two Writ Petitions filed by the appellant and Kundanmall Baid (C.R. No. 713(W) of 1988 and C. R. No. 10656(W) of 1987 respectively), interim relief was granted staying further investigation in the case. To be precise, in C.R. No. 713(W) of 1988 filed by the appellant, while entertaining the Writ Petition on December 24, 1987, ad interim order operative till two weeks after the Christmas Holidays was passed restraining the respondents from proceeding with the investigation on the basis of Chitpur Police Station Case No. 94. When ultimately Rule was issued on February 3, 1988, interim relief was granted in the following terms:
"Interim order already passed will continue till the disposal of the Rule with liberty to the respondents to apply for vacating and / or varying the interim order upon notice to the petitioner."

4. An application dated March 3, 1989 was filed in the Registry by the eighth respondent herein (original complainant) praying that the order aforementioned passed on February 3, 1988 in the Writ Petition instituted by the appellant be recalled and / or set aside and / or any further order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper be passed. It was averred in the application that there was a conflict between the interim order aforesaid and the interim relief granted in Chhaganlal Baid's case inasmuch as in the latter case investigation was permitted to go on but only the filing of the final report without the leave of the Court was injuncted, whereas investigation was totally barred in the present case. It was submitted that total prohibition against investigation was causing great hardship and prejudice and that, therefore, the order granting interim relief was required to be recalled and / or set aside.

5 - 9. The said application was listed and reached hearing before Mr. Justice Bhagbati Prasad Banerjee on April 6, 1989. The material part of the order passed by the learned Judge upon the said application reads as follows
"In my view the case of the three different writ petitioners was against Chitpur P. S. Case No. 94 dated 23rd April, 1986 and the grounds of challenge were the same and that contradictory orders were passed because of the fact that the th