Subal Kumar Dey and anr. Vs. Rose Valley ChaIn Marketing Systems Ltd and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the court : instead of hearing of the application for stay, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating the same as on the days list as this appeal can be disposed of on a pure question of law. this appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for defamation and is directed against the order dated 22nd june, 2010 passed by a learned single judge of this 2 court by which his lordship adjourned the hearing of an application for injunction till the hearing of a contempt rule, which has been issued on the ground of violation of the ad interim order of injunction issued on the selfsame application. the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for defamation after taking leave under clause 12 of the letters patent and after filing of such suit came up with an application for injunction with the following prayers :- (a) an order of temporary injunction be passed restraining the respondents and each one of them, their respective servants, agents and/or assigns by whatsoever name called from making, printing or publishing any articles or news in the said news paper named syandan patrika or any other news paper, magazine or in any print or electronic media containing insinuations or imputations or allegations of similar like nature against your petitioners as mentioned in paragraphs 30 and 32 above in any manner whatsoever ; (b) an order of temporary injunction be passed restraining the respondents and each one of them, their respective servants, agents and/or assigns by whatsoever name called from repeating any allegation and/or imputation and/or insinuation against your petitioners, either similar or of like nature, as contained in the said articles published in the said news paper named syandan patrika and as mentioned in paragraphs 30 and 32 above in any manner whatsoever. on such application being moved, the learned single judge on november 16, 2009 passed an ad interim order of injunction in terms of the aforesaid prayers (a) and (b). 3 on being served with the copy of the application for injunction, the appellants entered appearance and prayed for time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application for injunction and have also filed affidavit-in-opposition pursuant to the leave granted by the learned trial judge. it appears that affidavit-in-reply has also been given by the plaintiffs to the said affidavit-in-opposition. it may not be out of place to mention here that the defendants in the meantime have also filed a separate application being g.a.3390 of 2009 thereby praying for revocation of the leave granted earlier under clause 12 of the letters patent and the said application is still pending. on 22nd june, 2010 when the main application for injunction came up for hearing, the appellants before us on the basis of their objection to the application for injunction prayed for vacating the ad interim order earlier granted in the month of november, 2009. the said prayer was, however, opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and it was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that as the court had already issued a rule of contempt alleging violation of the interim order, the application for temporary injunction should not be heard till the disposal of the rule of contempt issued by the court. it appears from the order impugned that the learned single judge has accepted the aforesaid order of the plaintiffs and decided to adjourn the hearing of the application for injunction till the month of august, 2010 so that the application for contempt may come up for hearing. being dissatisfied the appellant-defendants have come up with the present appeal. after hearing mr. banerjee, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and mr. basu chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the 4 respondents-plaintiffs, we find that the learned single judge refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law by refusing to hear out the application for temporary injunction simply because a rule has been issued on the allegation of violation of the ad interim order of injunction. neither the contempt of courts act, nor the code of civil procedure provides for adjourning the hearing of an application for temporary injunction where interim order has been passed against a party simply because at the instance of the person, who obtains such ad interim order, a rule for contempt alleging violation of such order is pending. in the case before us, the appellant-defendants have already entered appearance and filed written objection to the application for injunction and at the same time have prayed for revocation of the leave granted by the learned single judge under clause 12 of the letters patent. in our view, the learned single judge should not have adjourned the matter by extending the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted and refused the appellants to hear on the question of vacating the interim order. in such circumstances, we set aside the order impugned and request the learned single judge to hear out the application for injunction positively within a week from the date of communication of this order. along with the aforesaid application for injunction, the learned single judge will also hear the application filed by the appellants for revocation of the leave granted earlier under clause 12 of the letters patent. we make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and only because there was no justification of adjourning the application for injunction that we have decided to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the learned single judge. in such circumstances, if for any reason, the injunction application cannot be disposed of within 7 5 days from the date of communication of this order, the interim order extended by the learned single judge will not continue any further after the expiry of such 7 days, unless the learned single judge after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants decides to extend the earlier interim order. learned counsel for the parties have agreed before us that they will not pray for any adjournment before the learned single judge. the appeal is, thus allowed and the order impugned is set aside. in the facts and circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. certified photostat copy of this order be made available to the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities.

Judgment:
THE COURT : Instead of hearing of the application for stay, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating the same as on the days list as this appeal can be disposed of on a pure question of law. This appeal is at the instance of a defendant in a suit for defamation and is directed against the order dated 22nd June, 2010 passed by a learned single Judge of this 2 Court by which his Lordship adjourned the hearing of an application for injunction till the hearing of a Contempt Rule, which has been issued on the ground of violation of the ad interim order of injunction issued on the selfsame application. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for defamation after taking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and after filing of such suit came up with an application for injunction with the following prayers :-

(a) An order of temporary injunction be passed restraining the respondents and each one of them, their respective servants, agents and/or assigns by whatsoever name called from making, printing or publishing any articles or news in the said News Paper named Syandan Patrika or any other news paper, Magazine or in any print or electronic media containing insinuations or imputations or allegations of similar like nature against your petitioners as mentioned in paragraphs 30 and 32 above in any manner whatsoever ;

(b) An order of temporary injunction be passed restraining the respondents and each one of them, their respective servants, agents and/or assigns by whatsoever name called from repeating any allegation and/or imputation and/or insinuation against your petitioners, either similar or of like nature, as contained in the said articles published in the said news paper named Syandan Patrika and as mentioned in paragraphs 30 and 32 above in any manner whatsoever.

On such application being moved, the learned single Judge on November 16, 2009 passed an ad interim order of injunction in terms of the aforesaid prayers (a) and (b). 3 On being served with the copy of the application for injunction, the appellants entered appearance and prayed for time to file affidavit-in-opposition to the application for injunction and have also filed affidavit-in-opposition pursuant to the leave granted by the learned trial Judge.

It appears that affidavit-in-reply has also been given by the plaintiffs to the said affidavit-in-opposition. It may not be out of place to mention here that the defendants in the meantime have also filed a separate application being G.A.3390 of 2009 thereby praying for revocation of the leave granted earlier under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and the said application is still pending. On 22nd June, 2010 when the main application for injunction came up for hearing, the appellants before us on the basis of their objection to the application for injunction prayed for vacating the ad interim order earlier granted in the month of November, 2009.

The said prayer was, however, opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and it was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that as the Court had already issued a Rule of contempt alleging violation of the interim order, the application for temporary injunction should not be heard till the disposal of the Rule of contempt issued by the Court.

It appears from the order impugned that the learned single Judge has accepted the aforesaid order of the plaintiffs and decided to adjourn the hearing of the application for injunction till the month of August, 2010 so that the application for contempt may come up for hearing. Being dissatisfied the appellant-defendants have come up with the present appeal. After hearing Mr. Banerjee, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Basu Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the 4 respondents-plaintiffs, we find that the learned single Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law by refusing to hear out the application for temporary injunction simply because a Rule has been issued on the allegation of violation of the ad interim order of injunction. Neither the Contempt of Courts Act, nor the Code of Civil Procedure provides for adjourning the hearing of an application for temporary injunction where interim order has been passed against a party simply because at the instance of the person, who obtains such ad interim order, a Rule for contempt alleging violation of such order is pending. In the case before us, the appellant-defendants have already entered appearance and filed written objection to the application for injunction and at the same time have prayed for revocation of the leave granted by the learned single Judge under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. In our view, the learned single Judge should not have adjourned the matter by extending the ad interim order of injunction earlier granted and refused the appellants to hear on the question of vacating the interim order. In such circumstances, we set aside the order impugned and request the learned single Judge to hear out the application for injunction positively within a week from the date of communication of this order. Along with the aforesaid application for injunction, the learned single Judge will also hear the application filed by the appellants for revocation of the leave granted earlier under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and only because there was no justification of adjourning the application for injunction that we have decided to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the learned single Judge. In such circumstances, if for any reason, the injunction application cannot be disposed of within 7 5 days from the date of communication of this order, the interim order extended by the learned single Judge will not continue any further after the expiry of such 7 days, unless the learned single Judge after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants decides to extend the earlier interim order.

Learned counsel for the parties have agreed before us that they will not pray for any adjournment before the learned single Judge. The appeal is, thus allowed and the order impugned is set aside. In the facts and circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. Certified photostat copy of this order be made available to the parties, upon compliance of usual formalities.