- (1.) THESE are two applications in a suit transferred from the Howrah court. The plaintiff's application, GA No. 2625 of 2006, is for an injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the receiver's possession of the suit property in howrah. GA No. 2713 of 2006 is an application in pro interesse suo by one Pratik marketing (P) Limited complaining of the receiver having dispossessed it from a part of the suit premises and seeking restoration of its possession.
(2.) THE context of the two applications and the conflicting rights asserted cannot be appreciated without going back a considerable distance in time. The present plaintiff is not the person who instituted Title Suit No. 12 of 1986 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court, Howrah. The plaintiff took over the rights of the original plaintiff and had itself substituted in place and stead of the original plaintiff.
(3.) THE narration of events has to begin with a reference to Suit No. 85 of 1984 filed before this Court wherein the plaintiffs' claim in such suit was discharged upon satisfaction in that regard being recorded by an order of November 27, 1991. The plaintiffs in the 1984 suit carried on business under the name and style of "himalayan Trade Links" (hereinafter referred to as Himalayan ). Himalayan had given a loan to Katihar Jute Mills Limited, the first defendant in the 1984 suit (hereinafter referred to as Katihar ). Morgan Walker and Company;