MUNNI BEGUM Vs. RABIA AHMED
LAWS(CAL)-2019-10-36
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 30,2019

MUNNI BEGUM Appellant
VERSUS
Rabia Ahmed Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Soumen Sen, Saugata Bhattacharyya,JJ. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 17th July, 2019 by which the learned IXth Bench, City Civil Court has disposed of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by extending the ad-interim ex parte order of status quo passed on 3rd December, 2018. The defendant No.1 is the appellant. The defendant No.1 is supported by defendant Nos.2 to 5. Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant No.1 has submitted that in disposing of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Trial Judge has not adverted to any of the pleadings and the objections raised by the defendant No.1 at the time of disposal of the injunction application. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant Nos.2 to 5 has supported Mr. Banerjee has further argued that notwithstanding the fact that the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by his client on 22nd January, 2019, the Trial Court did not advert to any of the grounds raised in the said application at the time of disposal of the injunction application.
(2.) We have perused the order under appeal. It appears that the Trial Court has made it clear by extending the order of status quo passed ex parte at a specious plea that nobody had challenged the ad-interim order of injunction before any higher forum. We are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as for the defendant Nos.2 to 5 that this order in unreasoned as it fails to take into consideration the objections raised by the appellant and the defendant Nos.2 to 5 before the learned Trial Judge at the time of final consideration of the injunction application. It is elementary that the consideration at the time of passing an ex parte ad-interim order and at the time of final disposal of the injunction application would be different. Although some of the tests may be the same. However, there should be some reflection in the order if the Court wants to justify the ex parte ad-interim order in its final order.
(3.) Apart from the mere narration of objections raised by Mr. Chatterjee's client before the learned Trial Judge, we do not find any consideration of those objections on merits that are required at the time of ad-interim stay in extending ad-interim order of injunction. However, in view of the fact that the ex parte ad-interim order continued since 3rd December, 2018 and made absolute on 17th July, 2019.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.