- (1.) THE dispute has a long chequered history. Genesis of the dispute between the land owner and the developer can be traced back to the mid eighties. M/s. Pratap Properties Ltd. , being the owner of 210 cuttahs of land situated at Kishenlal Burman Road, Salkia, Howrah, had mortgaged the prime property to M/s. Morgan Walker and Co. Ltd. in the year 1977. On the failure of the mortgagor to pay the dues, the mortgagee namely M/s. Morgan walker and Co. Ltd, filed the mortgage suit being Title Suit No. 12 of 1986 before the learned Court at Howrah. On 23/08/1986 the trial Court appointed a person as Receiver. The learned trial Court accorded liberty to the Receiver to appoint Darwan for protection of the property. The learned Receiver was also directed to submit a list of the tenants/occupiers residing therein. Meanwhile, M/s. Morgan Walker and. Co. Ltd. assigned its mortgage right to salkia Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. Following an application made by Salkia, the learned trial Court allowed the prayer for substitution made on behalf of salkia Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. Another interesting development had taken place in the intervening stage with M/s. Pratap Properties Ltd. and m/s. Pratik Marketing Pvt. Ltd. entering into two agreements for development of the property covering 210 cuttahs of land. On 21/04/1999 the owner called pratap Properties Ltd. cancelled the two development agreements by a notice, forfeiting the earnest money. In the wake of cancellation of the development agreement by M/s. Pratap Properties Ltd. , the developer namely Pratik marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed Title Suit No. 66 of 1999 against Pratap Properties ltd. , praying for decree for permanent injunction, restraining the owner called pratik Marketing Pvt. Ltd. from entering into agreement with the third party. On the same date an application for injunction was moved. The Court passed an ex-parte order of injunction with a direction upon the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed property.
(2.) MEANWHILE, M/s. Sulkia Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. made an application in the mortgage suit for restraining Pratap from encumbering, dealing with or inducting any outsider or from changing the nature and character of the suit property. The developer called Pratik also filed an application in mortgage suit for being impleaded as a party. On 16/09/1999 the learned Court in mortgage suit passed an order of status quo in respect of the possession of the suit property, restraining the parties from changing the nature and character of the suit property by way of developing or raising multi-storied building or from encumbering or inducting any outsider till disposal of the suit.
(3.) THE prayer of the developer for being impleaded in the mortgage suit was, however, rejected by the trial Court. In his report submitted before the court, the learned Receiver mentioned that on 25/08/1999 he had visited the property and affixed some Boards. He had also mentioned that a portion of the vacant land had been hemmed by brick-wall with iron gate. In his subsequent report the Receiver reported that the name of the developer namely Pratik Marketing Pvt. Lid. had been painted on the iron gate. Some security guards deployed by Pratik were also found moving in and around the vacant portion, as reported. On 03/09/1999 the Receiver made a complaint to the police that such painting had been done in his absence. On 08/09/1999 the Receiver filed an application in the mortgage suit, praying for necessary direction for preservation and protection of the suit property. In disposing of such application, the trial Court in mortgage suit observed that the learned Receiver should take care for the protection and preservation of the suit property. Direction was given to wash out the paintings made in the name of the Pratik Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and to take charge of the vacant land in the suit properties. Local police was directed to remove the security guards deployed by Pratik and also to remove the boards and paintings from the mortgage property. On receipt of the information contained in two letters dated 09/09/1999 and 10/09/1999 written by Mr. R. N. Dey on behalf of pratik as to the existence of the order of injunction, the learned Receiver for neeessary direction from the learned Court in seisin of the morgage suit. Entertaining such application, the learned Court directed the learned Receiver to follow the order no. 200 dated 09/09/1999. Direction was once more given to remove the painting made in the name of Pratik and to remove the security guards. The learned Trial Court made it clear that police help would be provided if it was so required. The order dated 09/09/1999 and 13/09/1999 passed in mortgage suit were challeng in appeal by Pratik which was eventually dismissed for non-prosecution.;