Contradiction In Civil Court Orders Does Not Empower Writ Court To Virtually Decide Sub Judice Matter: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court at Jalpaiguri held that contradiction in the orders of the civil court cannot empower the writ court to enter into the specific domain of the civil court and pass the order by which the suits are virtually decided, when the matter is sub judice before the civil court.

The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed:

“It is for the civil court, if so approached by one of the parties, to come to a specific finding as to whether there was a violation of the order of court, as to who was in possession of the property at the time of passing the restraint order and regarding what was the status of the property at the relevant juncture when the injunction order was initially passed and as to whether police help should be directed in the context.”

The court was hearing an appeal against the impugned order dated August 11, 2022 of a single judge bench in a writ petition which directed the police to close a lodge (which was subject matter of a civil disputes) and seize it forthwith till the civil disputes were settled between the parties.

In the said writ petition, the matter before the single judge was that the concerned lodge was forcibly taken away from the petitioner by putting her on gunpoint for signing some documents. Subsequently, the petitioner in the said writ petition filed suit for cancellation of deed in which she got an ex parte injunction. The petitioner in the said writ petition alleged that the police did not take any step in furtherance of the injunction order despite complaints made to the police.

The respondent (present petitioner) in the said writ petition contended that the property (lodge) belongs to him as there was a registered deed in his favour executed by the petitioner. It was further submitted that three persons have filed three different suits for cancellation of the deed wherein they got similar ex-parte orders from the civil court.

The single judge of the High Court vide impugned order dated August 11, 2022 directed the police not to hand over the lodge to the real owner as per order of the competent court and all boarders of the lodge were told to leave the lodge immediately.

The division bench observed that there are three different suits pending before the competent civil courts with the regard to the concerned lodge as subject matter and contradictory orders of injunction were passed directing the defendants in each of the said suits not to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs with regard to the said lodge.

The court noted:

“such contradiction in the orders of the civil court cannot empower the writ court to enter into the specific domain of the civil court, particularly since the matters are sub judice before three competent civil courts, and to pass an order whereby the suits were virtually decided. In fact, the relief granted by the writ court was beyond the reliefs sought in the suits as well.”

Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order of the single judge bench holding that the writ court assumed jurisdiction which it does not have in law.

The court further set aside and reversed any action, if taken pursuant to the impugned order thereby restored the status quo ante with regard to the disputed lodge as at the time immediately prior to the execution of the impugned order.

However, the court held that the petitioner or any of the private respondents are not precluded from approaching the competent civil court for appropriate relief for the purpose of implementation of the injunction orders or alleging violation of the same.

Case Title: Sri Pankaj Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 64

Coram: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment