Smt. Santana Hazra vs Samarjit Bouri Kshetrapal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5797 Cal

   34
 sandip
 Ct. 18
23.08.2022
                           S.A.T. No. 140 of 2020
                           I.A. No : CAN 2 of 2022

                       Smt. Santana Hazra
                                 Vs.
                  Samarjit Bouri Kshetrapal & Ors.


               Mr. Bhaskar Ghosh, Sr. Adv.,
               Mr. Uttiya Ray,
               Mr. Siddhartha Paul ... For the applicant/appellant.

               Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee,
               Ms. Manideepa (Paul) Roy
                               ... For the respondent nos. 1 to 11.

Re : I.A. No : CAN 2 of 2022

Affidavit-in-reply filed by the applicant be kept with

the record.

This is appellant's application for injunction. The

appellant is praying that her possession over the suit

property may be protected pending disposal of the

present second appeal as it was, during the pendency

of the proceedings before the Courts below.

Mr. Ghosh, learned senior advocate for the

appellant submits that notwithstanding dismissal of

the suit, the learned Trial Judge found the appellant

in possession of the suit property and the appeal

therefrom although was dismissed but the appeal

Court below did not hold contrary on the issue of

possession, therefore, the said possession of the

appellant requires to be protected during the

pendency of the present appeal, by an appropriate

order of injunction.

Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the respondent

nos. 1 to 11 submits that his clients are apprehending

creation of third party interest over the suit property,

therefore, he prays that both parties may be

restrained by an appropriate order of injunction from

dealing with the suit property during the pendency of

the present second appeal.

Heard learned advocate for the parties, perused the

materials-on-record.

It appears that the learned Trial Judge although

has dismissed the suit but in the judgment has

recorded that the plaintiff, the appellant herein is in

possession of the suit property. The appeal Court

below did not disturb the said finding. The appellant

is now apprehending disturbance in enjoyment of the

suit property in the absence of an appropriate order of

injunction which she enjoyed in course of the trial of

the suit and during the pendency of the appeal arising

out of the said suit.

The appellant has been able to make out a prima

facie case for an order of injunction as prayed for,

other conditions for grant of such an order of

injunction are also satisfied, in consequence thereof

the respondents are restrained from disturbing the

appellant's possession over the suit property in any

manner whatsoever till the disposal of the present

second appeal.

To avoid multiplicity of proceedings the parties are

restrained by a further order of injunction from

transferring, alienating and/or otherwise encumbering

the suit property till the disposal of the present

second appeal.

CAN 02 of 2022 is disposed of with the above terms

without any order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to

compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)