CIVIL PROCEDURE – INJUNCTION – STATUS QUO ORDER – REMAND
High Court sets aside cryptic status quo order passed by trial court in a partition suit for non-application of mind to materials on record, pleadings, and documents, specifically regarding contentions of property acquisition by State and private transfer of a demarcated portion.
Trial Court's failure to adequately consider prima facie case, contentions, and documents despite noting arguments, constitutes a ground for setting aside interim injunction order.
Remand ordered for fresh hearing and re-adjudication of temporary injunction application on merits, based on existing evidence and materials.
Interim status quo directed to be maintained by both parties until disposal of the injunction application, providing temporary protection to the defendant (appellant) who was previously subject to a unilateral ad interim order.
Expeditious disposal of remanded injunction application mandated within one month.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 (Implied)
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
&
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar
FMA No. 446 of 2025
+
CAN 1 of 2025
Sri Nitai Sau and others
-vsSri Madan Mohan Singha
For the appellants : Mr. Sibasish Ghosh,
Mr. Kalipada Chakraborty.
For the respondent : Mr. Arijit Chatterjee,
Mr. Pronita Paramanya Naskar.
Heard on : June 23, 2025.
Judgment on : June 23, 2025.
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:
1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.
2. On consent of the parties, we take up the appeal and the
connected application for hearing by dispensing with other
2
formalities since the plaintiff/respondent is represented through
counsel.
3. The plaintiff/respondent filed a partition suit in respect of 21
decimals of the property.
4. The defence of the appellants was that out of the said 21
decimals, 17 decimals have been acquired by the State,
whereas the balance 4 decimals was transferred by
demarcation exclusively to the defendants/appellants by the
predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff/respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that, by the
impugned order, a blanket order of status quo was passed
without adverting to any of the contentions of the parties
and/or without any reason.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent opposes such
contention and argues that the learned trial Judge took into
consideration the arguments of the parties and upon arriving at
a conclusion that there was a prima facie case made out and
that the possession of the plaintiff was undisputed, granted
status quo.
7. It is thus contended by the respondent that the impugned order
ought to be sustained.
3
8. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, we find that
although the narrative contains the arguments of the parties,
the impugned order is absolutely cryptic insofar as reasoning
is concerned.
9. The learned trial Judge merely proceeded on the premise that
the issue raised by the defendants is not liable to be
determined at this early stage of the suit and to determine the
same evidence is required, without taking into consideration
that, even if on a prima facie footing, the learned trial Judge
was required to advert to the contentions and documents of
the parties.
10. The learned trial Judge observed that prima facie it appears
that the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff as well as that
the defendants have right, title and interest over the ‘Ka’
schedule property and that a prima facie case of balance of
convenience and inconvenience is made out.
11. However, paying lip-service to the parameters of grant of
injunction would not suffice. The impugned order reflects
absolute non-application of mind by the learned trial Judge to
the materials on record, the documents produced by the
parties and the respective pleadings of the parties, in particular
4
vis-à-vis acquisition and transfer of a demarcated specific
portion of the property in favour of the defendant/appellant.
12. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the
eye of law.
13. However, keeping in view that the respondent was enjoying
an ad interim order of status quo during the pendency of the
temporary injunction application in the trial court, we are of the
opinion that the purpose of justice would be sub-served if in
the interregnum similar protection is given to the defendant
and the injunction application is directed to be reheard and redecided by the learned trial Court.
14. Accordingly, FMA No. 446 of 2025 is allowed on contest,
thereby setting aside the impugned order, bearing Order No.
12 dated January 28, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Second Court at Contai, District- Purba
Medinipur, in Title Suit No. 164 of 2024 and remanding the
temporary injunction application to the learned trial Judge for a
fresh hearing and re-adjudication of the said application on
merits on the materials already on record.
15. The learned trial Judge shall re-adjudicate the temporary
injunction application on merits upon hearing both parties, on
the evidence and materials already on record.
5
16. Both parties shall maintain status quo regarding the suit
property till disposal of the temporary injunction application.
17. It is expected that the learned trial Judge shall complete
such exercise as directed above as expeditiously as possible,
positively within one month from the date of communication of
this order to the learned trial Judge.
18. CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly as well.
19. There will be no order as to costs.
I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
(Uday Kumar, J.)
