SOUMITRA PAL,J. - (1.) Today, the matter has come up for extension of interim order.
(2.) Prayer for extension of interim order is opposed by Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.7 on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed the fact about the pendency of a suit being Title Suit No. 81 of 2009 pending before the learned 5th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore wherein by an order dated 25th August, 2009 the prayer for extension of interim order was disallowed on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that the property in question , that is, the plot having khatian no. 915 was acquired by the State on behalf of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority on 28th May, 1983.
(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Guhathakurata, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, that though the suit is for declaration and is for a different cause of action and not between the same set of parties and as the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, interim order already granted be extended. Further the fact regarding the pendency of the suit though not mentioned in the writ petition, has been mentioned in the application for addition of party. On a query It has been submitted that the writ petition was filed subsequent to the filing of the suit and no appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25th August, 2009 passed by the learned 5th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore.;