Smt. Gouri Sirkar and ors. Vs. Mani Bhushan Sirkar and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1059450
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnMay-16-2012
JudgeI. P. MUKERJI
AppellantSmt. Gouri Sirkar and ors.
RespondentMani Bhushan Sirkar and ors.
Excerpt:
order sheet ga no.1081 of 201.cs no.2706 of 195.in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction original side smt. gouri sirkar & ors.versus mani bhushan sirkar & ors.before: the hon'ble justice i.p.mukerj.date :16. h may, 2012. mr.s.k.kapoor, sr.mr.a.chowdhury, sr.mr.a.k.banerjee, sr.mr.s.n. mookherji, sr.mr.s.talukdar, sr.mr.s.dutt, adv.adv.adv.adv.adv.adv.appears.appears.appears.appears.appears.appears.the court : mr.ahin chowdhury, learned senior advocate, and mr.s.n.mookherji, learned senior advocate, have made extensive submissions. mr.chowdhury, inter alia, showed me the minute receivers.dated april 19, 1997. of the joint that minute, according to him, recorded the existence of bhola singh as a tenant. furthermore, it recorded some alleged illegal and wrongful acts committed by him without the consent of the joint receivers.it is submitted that the above minute would show that the joint receivers were in possession of the subject shop room. mr.s.n.mookherji, learned senior advocate, takes me through the judgment and order of this court passed by p.b.mukharji, j., on 1st may 1956. he also takes me through the records of the case as annexed to the application g.a.no.1081 of 2012. he submits that the subject shop room was never under the possession of the joint receivers.be that as it may, whether the subject shop room was under the possession of the joint receivers is in contention. in my opinion, such contention can only be resolved upon filing of affidavits. there are numerous properties, numerous court orders.schedules, deeds, documents and so on. at present, it is not possible for this court to come to any prima facie opinion as to whether the subject shop room was directed to be under the control of the joint receivers.therefore, till the affidavits are completed, the rights of the parties have to be balanced. i think that in the circumstances, the interim order dated may 10, 2012 should be continued. i direct senco gold to maintain the status quo as of today strictly. to be more precise, the incidents of possession should not be changed, e.g.telephone connection, electricity connection, display or lighting of signboards, construction work, erection of doors.windows, gates etc.the affidavit in opposition may be filed by 18th june, 2012. list this application on july 4, 2012. the affidavit in reply may be filed in the meantime. parties shall act on signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. (i.p.mukerji, j.) tk
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET GA NO.1081 OF 201.CS NO.2706 OF 195.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SMT.

GOURI SIRKAR & ORS.Versus MANI BHUSHAN SIRKAR & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I.P.MUKERJ.Date :

16. h May, 2012.

Mr.S.K.Kapoor, Sr.Mr.A.Chowdhury, Sr.Mr.A.K.Banerjee, Sr.Mr.S.N.

Mookherji, Sr.Mr.S.Talukdar, Sr.Mr.S.Dutt, Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.Adv.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.AppeaRs.The Court : Mr.Ahin Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate, and Mr.S.N.Mookherji, learned Senior Advocate, have made extensive submissions.

Mr.Chowdhury, inter alia, showed me the minute ReceiveRs.dated April 19, 1997.

of the Joint That minute, according to him, recorded the existence of Bhola Singh as a tenant.

Furthermore, it recorded some alleged illegal and wrongful acts committed by him without the consent of the Joint ReceiveRs.It is submitted that the above minute would show that the Joint Receivers were in possession of the subject shop room.

Mr.S.N.Mookherji, learned Senior Advocate, takes me through the judgment and order of this court passed by P.B.Mukharji, J., on 1st May 1956.

He also takes me through the records of the case as annexed to the application G.A.No.1081 of 2012.

He submits that the subject shop room was never under the possession of the Joint ReceiveRs.Be that as it may, whether the subject shop room was under the possession of the Joint Receivers is in contention.

In my opinion, such contention can only be resolved upon filing of affidavits.

There are numerous properties, numerous court ordeRs.schedules, deeds, documents and so on.

At present, it is not possible for this court to come to any prima facie opinion as to whether the subject shop room was directed to be under the control of the Joint ReceiveRs.Therefore, till the affidavits are completed, the rights of the parties have to be balanced.

I think that in the circumstances, the interim order dated May 10, 2012 should be continued.

I direct Senco Gold to maintain the status quo as of today strictly.

To be more precise, the incidents of possession should not be changed, e.g.telephone connection, electricity connection, display or lighting of signboards, construction work, erection of doORS.windows, gates etc.The affidavit in opposition may be filed by 18th June, 2012.

List this application on July 4, 2012.

The affidavit in reply may be filed in the meantime.

Parties shall act on signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) tk