LexAYAN CHATTERJEE versus FUTURE TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION INC. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
. [2017] 3 S.C.R. 538
A YAN CHATTERJEE
v.
FUTURE TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION INC. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5655 of2007)
APRIL 18, 2017
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABIIAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 39, rr. 1 & 2 -
Interlocutory Orders/Proceedings - Nature and effect of - Civil
suit by respondent no. I-plaintiff for declaration and permanent
injunction against appellant-defendant - Tempormy injunction also
sought - While deciding the temporary injunction application, trial
court inter alia directed parties 10 maintain status-quo - High Court
while deciding appeals against the interlocutory order, invoked
powe1~s u/s. 340, CrPC and directed lodging of a complaint against
the appellant for having allegedly fabricated some documents filed
in· the suit - On appeal, held: The findings recorded while deciding
interlocutory proceedings such as the one in present case (injunction
proceedings) are prima facie in nature and their effect remains
confined to the disposal of interlocutory proceedings only - Such
findings do not come in the way of dfaposal of the civil suit on
merits which is decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence
in the suit - Since the parties are yet to adduce evidence on merits,
it is in the interest of all the parties that they adduce evidence so
that the civil suit out of which the present appeal arises itself is
disposed of, on merits -" Depending ilpon the outcome of the suit,
appropriate directions can always be given, including the one given
by High Court - Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - s. 340 - Penal
Code, 1860 - s.J,96.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The findings recorded while deciding
interlocutory proceedings such as the one in this case (injunction
pro£eedings) are prima facie in nature and their effect remains
confined to the disposal of the interlocutory proceedings only.
Such findings do not, in any manner, affect and come in the way of
disposal of the Civil Suit on merits which is decided on the basis
of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties in the suit.
[Para 16][542-D-E]
538
AYAN CHATTERJEE v. FUTURE TECHNOLOGY
FOUNDATION INC. & ORS.
1.2 The parties are yet to adduce the evidence on merits
in support of their respective stand taken in the pleadings in the
civil suit, thus, it would be in the interest of all the parties
concerned, that they adduce evidence so that the Trial Court is
able to decide the civil suit on merits in accordance with law. The
Trial Court would decide the suit uninfluenced by any of the
findings recorded and observations made by the Trial Court and
also by the High Court in the impugned ordcr.[Para 17] [542-E-
F]
1.3 Depending upon the outcome of the suit, appropriate
directions, as the case may be, can always be given including the
one given by the High Court, if occasion so arises and if need be.
[Para 18] [542-G)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5655
of2007.
539
A
B
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2005 of the High Court
D
at Calcutta in F. M.A. T. Nos. 1335 of2005.
·.·_,.
Abhijit Sengupta, Adv. for the Appellant.
D. N. Ray, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advs. for_
the _!{espondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed by
defendant No.2 against the final judgment and order dated 21.07.2005
passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A.T. No. 1335 of 2005
whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein
against the order dated 06.04.2005 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr.Div.),
IXth Court at Ali pore in T.S. No.3 of2005.
2. We need not burden the order by setting out the facts in detail
except to the extent necessary to appreciate the short controversy involved
in the appeal.
3. The appellant is defendant No.2 whereas respondent No. I is
the plaintiff, respondent No. 2 is defendant No. I. and respondent No. 3
is defendant No. 3 in the Civil Suit out of which this appeal arises.
4. Respondent No. 1 has filed a Civil Suit being 'title Suit No. 3 of
2005 in the Court of!Xth Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ali pore against
. .:-
'-
E
F
G
H
540
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 3 S.C.R.
the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The suit is for a de.claration
that respondent No. I was and continues to be a tenant under respondent
No. 2 in relation to the suit property. Respondent No. I has also prayed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.