HARISH TANDON,J. - (1.) At the very outset this Court shall record that though the challenge under this civil revision is to an order dated 19th January, 2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Siliguri in Misc. Appeal no.1 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the prayer for ad interim order of stay of the operation of the order was deemed to have been refused, but upon perusing the order impugned in the said appeal and the manner in which it has been passed, this Court proposes to exercise the power of superintendence enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is no longer res integra that the High Court enjoins such power to keep the subordinate courts within the precincts of law. An ad interim order of injunction was passed on an application filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties on 17th August, 2015 restraining the defendant/petitioner from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff till 16th September, 2015. It is not in dispute that such ad interim order of injunction was extended from time to time until the order no.16 passed in the said suit. There is no reflection after the said order no.16 till the order no.24 passed in the said suit that the said ex parte ad interim order of injunction was extended by the trial court. A serious dispute was raised before this Court over the filing of an application seeking extension of the said interim order on each date of listing. My attention is drawn to the orders recorded in the said suit wherefrom it appears that an application seeking extension of ad interim order was filed but there is no reflection that the court extended the said ad interim order of injunction. By an order dated 10th January, 2018 the learned judge in the trial court took up the matter and noticed that the ex parte ad interim order of injunction granted on 17th August, 2015 has not been extended on and from 1st July, 2016. The learned judge was of the opinion that it was a mistake on the part of the court in not extending ad interim order of injunction and extended in the manner as if the said ad interim order of injunction was operative through out the proceeding. What can be seen from the tenet of the said order is that the learned judge in the trial court was swayed by the fact that the act of the court should not cause any prejudice to the litigant. Such principle is well recognised and based on legal maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit.
(2.) Mr. Kundu, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/opposite parties forcefully submits before this Court that such legal maxim is well recognised in the legal parlance of this country and based on sound principle that a litigant should not suffer for the mistakes committed by the court. There is no quarrel to the aforesaid proposition of law provided the mistake is apparent and patent on the records. The mistake must be on such nature that without its adherence the order is of no consequences. It is not a rigid rule that the court once passes an ex parte ad interim order of injunction should continue to extend the same mechanically and in routine manner until the injunction application is finally heard and disposed of. On each day when the matter is fixed, it is obligatory on the part of the learned judge to hear both sides and pass a reasoned order while extending the ad interim order passed therein. If the Court has not expressly recorded the extension of the ad interim order of injunction, the legal presumption which can be drawn is that the court impliedly refuses to extend the ad interim order of injunction. This Court, therefore, cannot persuade itself to agree with the proposition laid down in the order dated 10th January, 2018 passed by the trial court that there was apparent mistake on the part of the court in not extending the ad interim order of injunction and, therefore, the extension is to take effect from the day when the said order was lastly extended. In other words, such order should be deemed to have been operative through out the proceedings.
(3.) Because of the aforesaid order this Court invited the attention of the respective counsels and to address the Court on the merit of the case which has been made out in the said suit. It appears from the order imposing the ad interim order of injunction that the plaintiffs/opposite parties claim right, title and interest on the strength of a deed of sale executed by the recorded owner. The plaintiffs/opposite parties also claimed to be in possession of the said suit premises which would be evident from the observations recorded in an earlier revisional application filed by the petitioner. There appears to be a serious dispute on the possession as both the parties are claiming such possession. Since the Court prima facie found the possession of the plaintiff/opposite party and restrained the defendant/petitioner from interfering peaceful possession therewith, it would be proper that such disputed question should be decided by the court in an application for injunction.;