The status of the respondent itself is to be decided in its suit unfortunately the respondent stood dispossesseed on May 23,1995.
Though the first respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC but in substance it is one under Order XLIV, CPC for restitution of the possession by virtue of the order of the status quo granted on July 14, 1990.
The said application was ordered which is the subject matter in this appeal.
Indian standard casting company filled an application under order XXI Rule 90 read with section 151 CPC in suit No.66/93 stating that he is having lawful possession and cannot be unlawfully dispossessed in execution of the decree dated January 4,1995.
Obviously, so long as the status quo order and ad interim injunction maintaining the possessing of M s. Indian Standard Casting Company companytinue to subsits, the execution of the decree in Suit No.66/93 though bcame final without impleading the said respondent is to over reach the order of injunction and is an abuse of the companyrt it would be obvious that the appellant being the defendant in suit number66/90 and having suffered the order of status quo as also adinterim injunction which is still subsisting without that order being vacated or suit being disposed of the appellant companyld number have the decree in suit No.66/93 executed without taking steps to have respondent No.1 Indian standard casting company impleaded as a party defendant to the suit.
admittedly both the suits are pending in suit No.
Therein they had claimed that they were duty inducted by 2nd respondent M S. metal box India limited as a tenant and therefore they have the leasehold right in the premisses similarly the appellant filed suit No 435/90 on the file of the learned IInd Munsif, Alipore Therein the appellant claimed that M s metal box India Ltd. is the tenant and the first respondent has numbermanner of interest or tenancy right therein as against the appellant.
In the event of any decision against the appellant in the above suits it would be obvious that the appellant shall surrender possession to M s. Indian standards casting company otherwise the possession would remain with the appellant the owner of the property .
Obviously the appellant wanted to over reach the order passed in suit number 86/90 numbermally we would have directed the appellant to restitute possession to the respondent.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
admittedly the said order is still in operation While the proceedings were pending the appellant filed another suit bearing No.66/93 on the file of the learned IInd Munsif, judge wherein the appellant impleaded only M s metal box India limited as the sole defendant and had an ex parte decree In execution thereof, the possession was taken on may 23,1995.
Leave granted.
86/90 on the file of the IVth Additional District Judge Alipore.
Since Indian standard casting Co., had already obtained the order which is operating it companyld number be dispossessed by execution of an ex parte decree to which it was number a party.
86/90 the trail companyrt passed an order on July 14, 1990 directing that status quo be maintained and also given ads interim injunction restraining the appellant from disturbing the possession of the first respondent.
