Biswajit Samanta and Another vs Avijit Samanta and Another

Prasenjit Mandal, J.—This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants and is directed against the Order No. 3 dated May 15, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barrackpore in Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2013 arising out of the order dated January 22, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No. 399 of 2010 thereby rejecting the application for temporary injunction on contests. The plaintiffs/appellants/petitioners herein instituted the aforesaid title suit before the learned Trial Judge for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. They have prayed for that the registered deed dated January 20, 1993 registered with the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Cossipore, Dum is to be treated as Trustee of the Settler, permanent injunction not to give effect of the said registered deed by the proforma defendant No. 2 and other reliefs.

In that suit, they filed an application for temporary injunction and the prayer for temporary injunction was rejected on contests. Being aggrieved, they preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 2013 before the First Appellate Court and the said misc. appeal was disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards possession of the suit property till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction.

Having considered the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I am of the view that in consideration of the nature of the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs as indicated above, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly held that without trial, it cannot be established whether the petitioners are the co-sharers or not. He has found the prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. He has also held that if the respondents dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss and injury and that is why, he has granted injunction in the form of status quo till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. Therefore, it is obvious that the application for temporary injunction is possibly, still pending but wrongly recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the prayer for temporary injunction is rejected on contests. The object of granting injunction is to keep the property in status quo particularly when the application for temporary injunction is yet to be disposed of.

Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has referred to the decision of Bhartia Steel and Engineering Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Dina Nath Parolia, , in support of the principles of granting injunction restraining the opposite party from transferring, alienating and parting with possession of the suit property and if the injunction is not granted, the interest of a third party may be created resulting in multiplicity of the judicial proceedings.

He has also referred to the decision of Bhartia Steel and Engineering Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Dina Nath Parolia, , a decision passed by this Bench holding that when there is a prima facie case to go for trial and urgency in passing an ad interim order of injunction, the Court may pass appropriate orders of injunction, if it is found that if the injunction as prayed for is not granted, the plaintiff may suffer irreparable loss.

I have considered these decisions, but, since the interim order is limited for a particular period till the disposal of application for temporary injunction, I am of the view that there is no scope of interference with the impugned order.

In consideration of such a situation, I am of the view that so long as the application for temporary injunction is pending, the First Appellate Court is quite justified in directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards possession of the suit property till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction.

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.