PRASANNA KUMAR ROY KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1996-10-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 04,1996

PRASANNA KUMAR ROY KARMAKAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RAM SWARUP PROSAD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1997-12-17] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.K.GUPTA, J. - (1.)This is indeed an extraordinary case, as has also been observed by the Supreme Court while disposing of Civil Appeal Nos. 5099-5100 of 1996 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 16861-16862 of 1994) vide judgment dated 26-3-96. The facts are very interesting and intricate. However these are required to be stated to understand and properly appreciate the entire gamut of the controversy between the parties and the extent to which the process of law has been abused by one of the litigants.
(2.)One Smt. Geeta Rani Roy filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Court against some persons, including Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar, and Shri Robin Roy with respect to a portion of the property situated at 36, Gokul Boral Street, Calcutta-700 012. It was alleged in this petition by the petitioner Smt. Geeta Rani Roy that she had bought this property and that interference was being caused in her possession of the property by the private respondents in the writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court vide his judgment dated 30-8-93, while disposing of the writ petition, after making certain observations regarding the status of the writ petitioner and the forcibly taking over of the premises by the private respondents, directed the police authorities to see to it that free egress and ingress of the writ petitioner was not interfered with by the private respondents and that the police authorities remove the obstruction to such free egress and ingress, if there be any. Appeal against this order and judgment was filed by Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar, sole appellant, being appeal No. 785 of 1993 (Matter No. 1759 of 1993). He claimed to be a tenant in possession of the disputed premises and stated that he felt aggrieved of the order and judgment of the learned single Judge which had resulted in his dispossession from the premises in question. This appeal filed by Shri Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide their judgment dated 14-10-93 by observing that the dispute between the parties was purely of a private nature and that the writ petition filed by Smt. Geeta Rani Roy not being maintainable should not have been entertained. The appellant Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar made an application subsequently to the Appellate Bench that, despite his appeal having been allowed, he was not restored the possession of the disputed premises and that the Court may order restoration of the possession over such premises to him. The Division Bench, however, did not agree with his request and, while observing that by the disposal of the appeal, the Court had become functions officio, no relief could be granted to him. This was done vide order and judgment dated 14-1-94. Against this order, appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which as noticed at the outset in the very beginning of the judgment, was allowed by their Lordships on 26-3-96. The Supreme Court passed the following operative order, while disposing of the appeal :-
"In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the appeal Court dated 14th January, 1994 is set aside and we remand the case back to the appeal Court. The appeal court will direct an enquiry as to whether Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar was the person who was actually evicted from possession on the strength of the order passed on 30-8-1993 and, if so, restore Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar back into the possession of the disputed premises. Before passing any order the Court must satisfy itself as to the true identity and the wish of the appellant, Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar. If necessary, the Court will direct Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar to be personally present in the Court. The appeal Court will be at liberty to pass such order in the interest of justice as it thinks fit after ascertaining the facts and in accordance with law. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners in this case, will pay costs assessed at Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant."

(3.)In the course of the judgment referred to above, certain observations were made by their Lordships with regard to the judgments and orders passed in this case by the learned single Judge, by the Division Bench while disposing of the Letters Patent Appeal and by the Division Bench while refusing to grant relief to the appellant vide order passed on 14-1-1994.
;


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