Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.5655 OF 2007

Ayan Chatterjee             ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Future Technology Foundation Inc. & Ors.        …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) 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 Alipore in T.S. No.3 of

2005.

1

Page 2

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. 1 is the plaintiff, respondent No. 2 is

defendant No. 1 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 IXth Civil

Judge  (Senior  Division),  Alipore  against  the

appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The suit is

for  a  declaration  that  respondent  No.  1  was  and

continues to be a tenant under respondent No. 2 in

relation to the suit property.  Respondent No. 1 has

also  prayed  for  grant  of  permanent  injunction

restraining  respondent  No.  2  and  the  appellant,

their servants and the agents from interfering with

2

Page 3

peaceful possession of respondent No. 1 in the suit

property.  A  further  prayer  is  made  that  the

appellant  be  also  restrained  from  operating  the

Bank Account of respondent No. 1 bearing current

account No.0029-136274-050 with respondent No.

3.

5) During the pendency of  the  suit,  respondent

No.  1,  in  order  to  protect  their  rights,  which  are

subject matter of the civil suit, filed an application

under  Order  39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter

referred  to  as  “the  Code”)  and  sought  temporary

injunction  against  the  defendants  (appellant,

respondent  Nos.  2  and  3)  restraining  them  from

interfering in respondent No. 1’s possession over the

suit property etc.   

6) Respondent No. 2 and the appellant, who were

the contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively

3

Page 4

filed their reply and opposed the prayer for grant of

temporary injunction made by respondent No.1.  

7) The Trial Court, by order dated 6.4.2005, while

disposing of the injunction application directed the

parties  to  maintain  status-quo  over  the  suit

property. It recorded a finding that the plaintiff  is

prima facie found to  be  in  possession of  the  suit

property and that defendant No. 2 could not prove

his possession prima facie over the suit property.

8) Felt  aggrieved,  defendant  Nos.  1  and  2  filed

separate  Misc.  Appeals  before  the  High  Court

whereas the plaintiff also filed Misc. Appeal against

the  aforesaid  order  of  the  Trial  Court.   The High

Court,  by  impugned  judgment,  dismissed  the

appeals  filed  by defendant  Nos.  1 and 2  whereas

allowed in part the appeal filed by the plaintiff and

accordingly modified the order of the Trial Court to

the  effect  that  the  special  officer  be  appointed  to

take possession of  the suit  property  which would

4

Page 5

remain in his possession till the disposal of the Suit.

It  was  also  directed  that  this  direction  would  be

subject to the result of the Civil Suit.  

9) While disposing of the three appeals, the High

Court  also  directed  the  Trial  Court  to  decide  the

Civil Suit on or before 31.12.2005 on merits.  The

High Court then also invoked powers under Section

340  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  (in

short, “Cr.P.C.) and directed the Registrar General

of the High Court to lodge a complaint against the

appellant  and  respondent  No.  2  for  their

prosecution for having allegedly committed offence

punishable under Section 196 of  the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 by fabricating some documents filed by

them in the suit to secure the orders in their favour.

The directions read as under:  

“After  careful  scrutiny  of  the  Xerox copies of the two agreements and the receipt granted by defendant No.1 in  favour  of  the defendant no.2 for Rs.72000/-, we are prima facie  convinced  that  those  are  fabricated ones and were relied upon by the defendant nos.1 and 2 with the object of defrauding the

5

Page 6

Court with an eye to obtain favourable order in their favour and as such, they have prima facie  committed  an  offence  under  Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code; it is, therefore, expedient in the interest of  justice that an enquiry should be made to ascertain whether those documents included in the paper book between  pages  107  and  123  are  really fabricated ones.  We accordingly in exercise of our power conferred under Section 340 of the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  direct  the learned  Registrar  General  of  this  Court  to lodge  a  complaint  before  the  appropriate court  against  the  defendant  nos.  1  and  2 alleging  offence  under  Section  196  of  the Indian Penal Code on the aforesaid facts.”

10) Felt aggrieved, defendant No. 2 has filed this

appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

11) On 05.12.2005,   this  Court  issued notice  to

the  respondents  only  qua direction  given  by  the

High  Court  to  the  Registrar  General  of  the  High

Court to lodge a complaint under Section 340 of the

Crl.P.C.  During  the  pendency  of  the  S.L.P.,  this

Court stayed the implementation of the impugned

directions. In other words, this Court dismissed the

special  leave  petition  insofar  as  it  relates  to  the

main  controversy  decided  by  the  High  Court  in

relation to the grant of injunction and confined this

6

Page 7

appeal to examine the legality and correctness of the

impugned directions quoted supra.  

12) Even  on  second  call,  none  appeared  for  the

appellant.   Mr.  D.N.Ray  appeared  for  respondent

No. 1.  

13) In  the  interest  of  justice,  we  permitted  the

appellant to submit the written submissions within

three  days.  The  appellant  has  filed  the  written

submissions.   

14) Having  perused  the  record  of  the  case,  the

written submissions filed by the appellant and on

hearing  the  submissions  of  learned  counsel  for

respondent No. 1, we are inclined to dispose of the

appeal with observations made infra.

15) In our considered opinion, having regard to the

nature of controversy involved in the pending Civil

Suit and the one which has traveled to this Court

out of interlocutory proceedings, it would be in the

interest of all the parties that the Civil Suit out of

7

Page 8

which this appeal arises itself is disposed of on its

merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any

of the observations made by the Trial Court and the

High Court while deciding the injunction application

which is the subject matter of this appeal.  

16)  In our considered view,  even otherwise,  the

findings  recorded  while  deciding  interlocutory

proceedings such as the one in this case (injunction

proceedings)  are  prima  facie in  nature  and  their

effect  remains  confined  to  the  disposal  of  the

interlocutory  proceedings  only.  Such  findings,  in

our view, 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.

17) It  is  for  this reason, we are of  the view that

since the parties are yet to adduce the evidence on

merits in support of their respective stand taken in

the pleadings in the Civil  Suit,  it would be in the

8

Page 9

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. Needless to say, the Trial Court would decide

the  suit  uninfluenced  by  any  of  the  findings

recorded and observations made by the Trial Court

in its order dated 06.04.2005 and also by the High

Court in the impugned order.  

18) 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.  We,

therefore,  at  this  stage,  refrain  from  making  any

observation in the order.

19) Let the Civil Suit be decided by the Trial Court,

as directed above, within one year as an outer limit

strictly in accordance with law. Till then, the interim

order dated 05.12.2005 of this Court would remain

in operation so also the impugned order passed by

9

Page 10

the  High Court  which  this  Court  has  affirmed in

relation  to  the  grant  of  injunction  regarding

preservation of suit property.  

20)  Parties  to  appear  before  the  Trial  Court  on

02.05.2017 and produce the copy of this order to

enable the Trial Court to proceed with the trial of

the suit. Since  none  had  appeared  for  the

appellant  before  this  Court  for  prosecuting  the

appeal, the Trial Court shall issue notice to all the

parties (if nobody appears on 02.05.2017 on behalf

of  the parties) in the suit for their appearance on

the  date  to  be  fixed  by  the  Trial  Court  for

proceedings further in the trial, as directed above.   

21) In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeal

stands accordingly disposed of.

               ……...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]                                                                 …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; April 18, 2017  

10