Arunabha Barua, J. - (1.) This revisional application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against Order No. 60 dated 5.4.1993 passed by the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 744 of 1988 pending in the said Court.
(2.) The present petitioners are the plaintiffs in a title being T.S. No. 744 of 1988 pending in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, and the suit was for a declaration that the petitioners are the rightful owners of a business known as "New Book House" at a shop room at College Street, Calcutta, and for a declaration that the petitioners are the rightful tenants in respect of the said shop room which is the suit property under the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 and for a further declaration that if any illegal document is made in between the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5, 6 and proforma opposite party No. 9 in respect of the suit premises, that is a void document and not binding upon the petitioners and for a permanent injunction restraining the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5, 6 and proforma opposite party No. 9 and their men and agents from entering into illegal tenancy agreement in respect of the suit premises and restraining the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5, 6 and proforma opposite party No. 9 and their men and agents from interfering with an interrupting the user of the suit premises by the petitioners and restraining the opposite party No. 6 and his men and agents from entering into the suit premises and to conduct business therein till the determination of the tenancy of the suit premises and also restraining the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 from letting out the suit premises to any person till disposal of the suit. Having filed the suit the petitioners-plaintiffs made an application for temporary injunction under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and got an ex parte order of ad interim injunction from the Court of the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta on 6.5.1988. That interim order of injunction dated 6.5.88 was issued by the Court restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 6 and 9 from entering into an illegal tenancy agreement in respect of the suit premises, and also restraining them and their men and agents from interfering with the plaintiffs' user of the suit premises, and also restraining the defendant No. 6, particularly his men and agents from entering the suit premises and conducting business there till final disposal of the temporary injunction matter and defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were also restrained from letting out the suit premises to any person till final disposal of the petition for temporary injunction.
(3.) 1 According to the petitioner-plaintiffs, in spite of the fact that the said order of ad-interim injunction dated 6.5.88 is still in force, the defendant No. 6 in violation of the said order of interim injunction forcibly broke open the padlock of the suit premises and has illegally taken possession of the same. The petitioners allege that they tried their level best to restore possession of the suit premises even through the local police under an order from the learned Executive Magistrate but failed in their bid. So, what the petitioners eventually did was, they filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code before the learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, for an order to be passed directing the officer-in-charge, Muchipara Police Station, to restore possession of the suit premises immediately by breaking open the padlock, if any, so put in by the defendant No. 6. The petitioners made this application under Section 151 C.P.C. alleging that such order was necessary to prevent abuse of the process of Court and also to do justice to the petitioners who had been illegally dispossessed from the suit property. Defendant No. 6 files an objection to that petition under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code by the petitioners. It is contended by the defendant No. 6 that at all material times and still now the defendant No. 6 has been in possession and occupation of the suit shop room as a tenant under the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and they files xerox rent-sheets for the months of November, 1987 to January, 1988 in support. It is further contended that the petitioner has also obtained Trade Licence from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation for running his business at the shop room on his own account. He also files xerox copy of Trade Licence in support of this. He also claims to have purchased books from different book companies from 1974 to 1976 against challans, the xerox copies of which he files he further contends that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (opposite party No. 8) also recorded the name of defendant No. 6 as occupier of the said shop room as per the consolidated rate bill, xerox copy of which is filed. The defendant No. 6 having denied the material allegations of the petition under Section 151 C.P.C. by the plaintiffs has further alleged that the plaintiffs intentionally and deliberately suppressed material facts and had laid the learned Court to pass the impugned order of ad-interim order which would not have been passed by the learned Court if the materials as stated above were disclosed at time of the hearing of the injunction petition. It is further contended by the defendant No. 6 that no case has been made out by the plaintiffs for passing an order to the officer-in-charge, Muchipara P.S. to restore possession of the suit premises since the plaintiffs at all material times and still now has not been in possession of the suit property in any manner whatsoever and, therefore, the question of dispossession of the plaintiffs cannot and/or does not arise at all and there was no question of violation of the ad-interim order of injunction passed by the learned City Civil Court. The defendant No. 6 contends that the application under Section 151 by the petitioner is mala fill with the sole purpose of ousting the defendant from his. lawful possession and occupation of the suit property otherwise than in due process of law and states that Court will rather protect his legal right, title, interest and possession in respect of the suit property in accordance with law. According to the defendant No. 6 the application under Section 151 by the petitioner has no merits and should be dismissed.;