[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Gautam Saraf And Ors vs Ashok Kumar Saraf And Ors on 20 February, 2026
ORDER OD - 2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
CS/6/2026
IA NO: GA/1/2026
GAUTAM SARAF AND ORS
VS
ASHOK KUMAR SARAF AND ORS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Date: 20th February, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Anibban Ray, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Urmila Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Orijit Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Aishi Chatterjee, Adv.
...for petitioners.
Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Shivangi Thard, Adv.
Mr. Debojyoti Das, Adv.
...for defendant Nos. 1 to 4.
The Court:- Learned advocates for the parties are present.
The application for injunction being GA/1/2026 is taken up for further
consideration. Before the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Banerji, learned
Senior counsel for the defendants submits at the outset that the plaintiffs are
not entitled to the order of injunction with regard to certain properties in the
Schedule of Assets mentioned in Annexure- R. Mr. Banerji submits that the
Schedule of Assets mentioned in serial No.2 is already sold, those mentioned in
serial Nos.4, 5 and 6 are also sold and that mentioned in serial No.7 is a rented
property. Mr. Banerji submits that the property mentioned in serial No.10 is in
the name of the defendant No.2. Thus, the plaintiffs on the face of the plaint
are not entitled to maintain the suit with regard to the said property and not
entitled to the order of injunction. Mr. Banerji further refers to the contentions
made by the petitioners/plaintiffs in paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the
application for injunction.
Mr. Ray, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that
the plaintiffs nowhere have disputed with regard to the property mentioned in
serial No.10 lying in the name of the defendant No.2 but all that the plaintiffs
have contended is that the property is a coparcenary property and all the
properties were purchased from the joint family fund. Thus prima facie
considering the balance of convenience the plaintiffs are entitled to an order of
injunction. Further attention is also drawn with regard to the suit which was
pending before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bidhan Nagar North
24 Parganas being TS/272/2025 where there is an observation that the
defendants are in possession of two rooms in the property mentioned in serial
No.10 of Annexure-R. From the said order itself it is clear that at present the
possession of neither of the parties are disturbed and it is to be decided in this
suit as to whether the property which is claimed by the plaintiffs is
coparcenary property. Without trial on evidence this issue cannot be decided.
At this stage, there is no scope to modify or vacate the order of injunction
passed earlier.
Thus, the defendants are granted liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition
within three weeks from date. Reply, if any, within two weeks thereafter.
Let this matter appear on 10.04.2026.
The interim order, granted earlier, stands extended for a period of eight
weeks or until further orders whichever is earlier.
(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)
R.D. Barua
