DURGAPRASAD GUPTA Vs. SAHADEB DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Misc. Case is directed against the order passed by his Lordships in Criminal Revision Nos. 89 & 90 of 1994, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Dutta dated 16.5.94 "directing the officer-in-charge Jorashanko PS be accordingly, hereby appointed receiver in respect of the aforesaid 5 rooms in question in the disputed premises. He shall immediately take charge of the said 5 rooms; and shall hereafter make over possession of the same to the party concerned according to orders which may be passed by the City Civil Court in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 971 of 1992 in the light of the observations hereinabove made. Gauged in the background of the totality of the circumstances indicated above such a course also seems to me to be fit and proper for prevention of it (further) possible breach of peace and multiplicity of such like criminal proceedings". This order "shall not in any way preclude the petitioner Durgaprasad Gupta from taking steps against the contemner No. 1 Sahadeb Dey, for civil contempt and or under Order 33 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure before court for his alleged violation of the injunction order dated 15.7.92 the way he allegedly did as discussed above".

(2.) The above order, since resulted in infraction of right, the aggrieved preferred the criminal misc. case above referred to. In regard to get a grip to the core controversy about the viability of the contempt application, it is necessary in all fitness of things to set out the factual background of the case.

(3.) A criminal revision being Criminal Revision Case No. 89 of 1994 was initiated against the order of the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 17.12.93 in G.R. Case No. 4163 of 1993. The complainant put up a prayer before the learned ACMM to put him in possession of the 5 rooms of the disputed premises by removing the padlocks of the doors. The learned Magistrate declined to pass such an order for the reasons recorded in the order. The impugned order fell for consideration before his Lordship and for passing an interim order directing the officer-in-charge Jorashanko PS. to remove the padlocks from the doors of the 5 rooms comprised into 2 floors namely, 2 rooms on the second floor and 3 rooms on the ground floor of premises 55, Shimla Street coupled with a further prayer before the court of revision to allow him to enjoy the rooms until disposal of the matter.