Order No   6                                                                         Date:05/04/2023

        Ld. Advocate of the petitioner/complainant is present. Ld. Advocate of O.p. nos.1 to 5 is present. Ld. Advocate of O.p. nos.6 & 7 is present. Ld. Advocate of O.p. nos.8 to 12 and 14 to 19 is present.

       Ld. Advocate of petitioner/complainant files an application praying for extension of interim order. Copy served. Ld. Advocate of o.p. nos.1 to 5 files an application praying for passing necessary order on the ground stated therein. Copy served.

       On behalf of the O.p. nos.8 to 12 and 14 to 19 photocopies of three decisions namely (2000)7 Supreme Court Cases 695, 2015(3) ICC 889 (Cal.) and AIR 1992 Delhi 197 are filed.

       It may be noted that this commission has already heard the injunction matter and vide order dated 31/03/2023 this commission observed that in course of hearing it came to the notice of this commission that there is a chance of settlement partially at least and accordingly directed for taking necessary step on behalf of the petitioner/complainant as well as O.p. nos.1 to 5 and also observed that this commission is expecting that other O.ps. will cooperate on that score and on the basis taking step by the parties this commission will hear the matter and pass necessary order. But it appears that only O.p. nos.1 to 5 as per order dated 31/03/2023 file an application praying for necessary order on the ground stated therein. But petitioner/complainant did not file any application whatsoever for effecting any settlement, even partially.

       Ld. counsel appearing for the O.p. nos.6 & 7 and Ld. Counsel appearing for the O.p. nos.8 to 12 and 14 to 19 submit that they are very much ready to cooperate for passing at least an order for partial settlement, if any.

       It may be noted that as petitioner/complainant did not come forward for any settlement whatsoever for injunction matter and as such this commission has no other alternative but to pass an order on merit relating to injunction matter.

       It may be noted that petitioner/complainant and O.p. nos.6 to 20 as per cause list of C.C. case No.249/2022 are relatives in relation. But curiously enough after filing the instant case petitioner/complainant got an ad-interim order of injunction on 14/10/2022 against O.ps. and petitioner/complainant on 14/10/2022 being relatives of O.p. nos.6 to 20 did not disclose about the death of O.p. no.13 and 20. Subsequently, on 16/12/2022 O.p. nos.8 to 12 and 14 to 19 filed an application praying for necessary order in respect of interim order of injunction dated 14/10/2022.

       It may further be pointed out that on 16/12/2022 after such filing of application by O.p. nos.8 to 12 and 14 to 19 Ld. Advocate of petitioner/complainant on 16/12/2022 has confessed that order dated 14/10/2022 is required to be modified.

       Obviously, the conduct and attitude of the petitioner/complainant is highly suspicious and questionable as we are gathering the same from the entire circumstances as a whole. Subsequently, petitioner/complainant filed an application on 16/12/2022 for expunging the names of O.p. nos.13 & 20 and not even filed any application for substitution for the death of O.p. nos.13 & 20. It seems that petitioner/complainant is very much interested by hook or by crook to continue the order of ad-interim injunction and for this reason is adopting the measured mentioned above which is not at all appreciable and desirable.

       This commission has gone through the aforesaid decisions. Going the materials on record and the aforesaid decisions including touching upon the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsels of the respective parties first of all it may be pointed out that all the time it is expected that approach of the petitioner/complainant should be honest and clear and suppressing of material facts is highly condemnable. Here we are seeing that being the relative of O.p. nos.13 & 20 petitioner/complainant has completely suppressed about the factum of their (O.p. nos.13 & 20) death and according to our view it is absolutely a suppression on the part of the petitioner/complainant.

       We are also seeing that for his own interest petitioner/complainant by availing such ad-interim order of injunction dated 14/10/2022 is merrily enjoying the same causing hindrance to all the O.ps. Certainly, such enjoyment of the petitioner/complainant cannot be proceeded further.

       In view of the forgoing discussion and considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case this commission is passing the following order modifying the modified order dated 16/12/2022 of C.C. case No.249/2022 relating to injunction matter of this commission to the effect that O.p. nos.1 to 5 are hereby restrained from transferring/assigning/handing over the two flats on the 7^th and 9^th floor of the building in question as per schedule – “C” of the injunction application to any third party till disposal of this case and O.p. nos.1 to 5 can very much transfer the other flats in the building in question to others whatsoever henceforth. Further it is ordered that restraining order in respect of O.p. nos.6 to 12 and 14 to 19 relating injunction matter is hereby withdrawn completely.

       Be it further mentioned that this commission is condemning highly the act of the petitioner/complainant for suppressing the facts about the factum of death of O.p. nos.13 & 20 at the time of hearing application of ad-interim order of injunction. Accordingly, instant M.A. case No.31/2023 is disposed of.

Dictated & corrected by me.         

President