Full Judgment
GA No.2428 of 2013 CS No.285 of 2013 GA No.2750 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE ITC LTD.Versus CHOWRINGHEE RESIDENCY PVT.LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date : 29th August, 2014.
Appearance: Mr.Ahin Chowdhury, Sr.Advocate Mr.S.Talukdar, Sr.Advocate Mr.Sakya Sen, Advocate Ms.Deboshri Dutta, Advocate Mr.Sudipta Sarkar, Sr.Advocate Mr.Arindam Banerjee, Advocate Mr.Satadip Bhattracharya, Advocate Mr.Biswajit Kumar, Advocate Ms.Somdutta Bhattacharya, Advocate The Court: This application (GA No.2750 of 2014) is taken out by the defendant.
It is disposed of by the following order :List the Order VII Rule 11 application (GA No.2698 of 2013) on 3rd September, 2014 for judgement.
GA No.2428 of 2013 is an interim application by the plaintiff in aid of the suit asking for an order of injunction to restrain the defendant from making any construction of the proposed 240 m building in the premises in question.
They apprehend that this building, if allowed, will cause substantial diminution of light to their residential building, which is adjacent.
At the time of hearing of the Order VII Rule 11 application, I had observed that since there would be overlapping of issues, both the applications should be heard one after the other, the Order VII Rule 11 application being heard fiRs.and thereafter judgement delivered.
Hearing of the Order VII Rule 11 application was completed and hearing of the interim application started but not concluded when the determination changed in or about August, 2014.
Thereafter, when the interim application was proposed to be taken up, adjournment was sought on behalf of Mr.Sarkar, learned Senior Advocate for the defendant.
It appeared to this court to be clear that the defendant was not interested in this court taking up the interim application.
At that point of time Mr.Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff, submitted that the interim application had been heard substantially and that I should not release the matter.
Therefore, the interim application was not released and adjourned till today by making the Order VII Rule 11 application C.A.V.Even today learned Counsel for the defendant expresses difficulty in proceeding with the matter.
It is obvious his client wants release.
Mr.Chowdhury opposes release.
In such controversial circumstances, this court is unwilling to take up the interim application.
The said application (GA No.2428 of 2013) is released from my list.
Let the file be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for necessary administrative ordeRs.Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) G/