Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Sri Kartick Chandra Samanta & Anr vs Sri Rashbehari Samanta & Anr.) on 4 July, 2022
13
04.07.2022
Ct. No. 32
rrc
FAT 172 of 2018
with
CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 2512 of 2018)
(Sri Kartick Chandra Samanta & Anr. Vs.
Sri Rashbehari Samanta & Anr.)
Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra
Mr. Ashim Kumar Roy
.... For the appellants
Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh
Ms. Jayeta Kaunda Mitra
..... For the respondents
The present appeal has been preferred against the
judgment and decree dated 30th January, 2018 passed in
Title Suit No. 41 of 2013 by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur.
Records reveal that in the application for injunction
being CAN 2512 of 2018, on 18th December, 2018, an ad-
interim order of status quo with regard to the nature,
character as well as the title of the property was granted
for a period of 12 weeks or until further orders,
whichever is earlier. The parties were also directed to
exchange their affidavits to the application. Pursuant to
such direction, the parties have exchanged their
affidavits and the application has come up for final
hearing.
Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the
appellants/plaintiffs submits that the suit was for
declaration, partition, injunction and other reliefs.
According to him, the possession of one co-owner is on
behalf of all the co-owners and that the defendants
having failed to prove title acquired by way of adverse
possession, the learned Judge ought not to have
dismissed the suit by holding that the same is barred
under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent no. 1 submits that that the ad-interim order
passed earlier on 18th December, 2018 had already
expired. In the suit itself, the plaintiffs' prayer for
injunction was refused and the said order was not
challenged.
He further submits that the said respondent no. 1 is
in possession of the suit property and the said
respondent had already purchased the interest of the
respondent no. 2.
It appears that the suit is for partition and the
plaintiffs are claiming to be the co-owners. In our
opinion, a prima facie case has been made out and
unless an interim order is passed, the appellants may
suffer irreparable loss and injury.
In view thereof, there shall be an interim order
restraining the respondents from transferring, alienating
and/or creating any third party interest in respect of the
suit property and from changing the nature and
character of the suit property till the disposal of the
present appeal.
The application for injunction being CAN 2512 of
2018 is, accordingly, disposed of.
As the respondent no.1 had already purchased the
interest of the respondent no. 2 and as Mr. Ghosh has
entered appearance on behalf of the respondent no. 1,
service of notice upon the respondents is dispensed with.
Lower Court Records be called for through Special
Messenger at the cost of the appellants. Such costs shall
be deposited within two weeks from date.
Immediately, after arrival of the Lower Court
Records, the office shall examine the same and, if found
complete, shall issue notice of arrival of Lower Court
Records to the learned advocates appearing for the
appellants and the respondents.
Appellants are directed to prepare requisite number
of informal paper books-printed, typewritten or
cyclostyled, as the case may be, out of Court, within six
weeks from the date of service of notice of arrival of
Lower Court Records and to file the same after serving a
copy upon the Mr. Ghosh.
All formalities regarding preparation of paper books
are dispensed with but the learned advocate for the
appellant is directed to incorporate all the relevant
documents in the informal paper books.
Liberty to mention.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
