Dismissed¶34

Santosh Kumar Singh and Anr. v. Sique Wen

Calcutta HC21 Nov 2025CO/189/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Status quo order; injunction in suit for declaration and injunction; Order 39 Rule 3 CPC compliance; hearing on contest after written objection; appeal Court supplementing reasons; Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow 2025 INSC 966; Saroj Saha F.M.A.T. 52 of 2024; Civil Judge Senior Division Jalpaiguri; Misc. Appeal Case no. 3 of 2022; civil revision dismissed without costs; Debangsu Basak J.; High Court at Calcutta, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench.

What did the court decide?

Since the injunction petition was heard and decided on contest after the petitioners filed a written objection, the Court was not in a position to return a finding of non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ¶25

Santosh Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs Sique Wen — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the status quo order dated June 17, 2022 passed by the learned Trial Judge, as affirmed by the learned Appeal Court, was liable to be vacated for non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

¶12

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the ratio laid down in Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow (supra) and Saroj Saha & Ors. (supra) is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case

¶26

Key takeaways

An appeal Court can supplement the reasons for grant of an order; although the learned Appeal Court found that no reasons were recorded by the learned Trial Judge for the status quo order, it supplemented reasons and concurred with that orderratio¶27
Absence of reasons to continue with the status quo order granted by the learned Single Judge, as done by the impugned order, was not a ground canvassed in the revisional applicationobiter¶30
No material irregularity was found in the order impugnedratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision (C.O. 189 of 2025) against the order dated July 15, 2025 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalpaiguri in Misc. Appeal Case no. 3 of 2022, affirming the Trial Judge's status quo order dated June 17, 2022 in a suit for declaration and injunction — DISMISSED. Held: (i) since the injunction petition was heard and decided on contest after the petitioners filed a written objection, no finding of non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 could be returned; (ii) consequently, the ratio in Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow, 2025 INSC 966, and Saroj Saha & Ors., F.M.A.T. 52 of 2024, was not attracted to the facts; (iii) an appeal Court can supplement the reasons for grant of an order, and the Appeal Court, though noting the absence of reasons in the Trial Judge's order, supplemented reasons and concurred with the status quo order; (iv) absence of reasons was not a ground canvassed in the revisional application; (v) no material irregularity was found in the impugned order. Dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

Present:

¶3

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

¶4

C.O. 189 of 2025

¶5

Santosh Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Sique Wen

¶6

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sibasis Ghosh Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharya Mr. Haider Ali Mr. Satyam Sarkar For the Opposite Party : Ms. Bedashruti Bose Mr. Subham Chanda Heard & Judgment on : November 21, 2025

¶7

Debangsu Basak, J.:-

¶8

Revisional application is directed against order dated July 15, 2025 passed

¶9

by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalpaiguri in Misc. Appeal Case no. 3 of 2022.

¶10

By the impugned order, learned Appeal Court was pleased to affirm the order of status quo passed by the learned Trial Judge on June 17, 2022.

¶11

¶12

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the initial order dated June 17, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge was in violation of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He submits that compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is mandatory. In absence of such compliance, the injunction order is liable to be vacated. In support of such contention, he relies upon 2025

¶13

INSC 966 (Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs.

¶14

The State of U.P. & Ors.) as well as an unreported decision of the Division Bench dated June 11, 2024 passed in F.M.A.T. 52 of 2024 (Saroj Saha & Ors. vs. Lalan Prasad Gupta & Ors.) .

¶15

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court to the findings returned by the impugned order. He submits that the learned Appeal Court was pleased to find that reasons for the conclusion with regard to the existence of the grounds for granting an order of injunction were not apparent on the face of the order dated June 17, 2022 of the learned Trial Court.

¶16

Opposite party is represented.

¶17

In a suit for declaration and injunction, the opposite party applied for injunction. Injunction petition was taken up for contested hearing after

¶18

the petitioner before this Court filed a written objection. Injunction

¶19

¶20

petition of the opposite party was taken up for consideration by the

¶21

learned Trial Judge.

¶22

Learned Trial Judge was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status

¶23

quo with regard to the nature and character of the suit property.

¶24

An appeal was carried against the status quo order dated June 17, 2022. Appeal was disposed of by the impugned order dated July 15, 2022.

¶25

Since the injunction petition was heard and decided on contes after the petitioner before this Court filed a written objection, I am not in a position to return a finding that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

¶26

Consequently, the ratio laid down in Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow (supra) as well as Saroj Saha & Ors. (supra) are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶27

It is trite law that, an appeal Court can supplement the reasons for grant of an order. In the facts of the present case, although the learned Appeal Court returned a finding that there were no reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge in granting an order of status quo, nevertheless the Appeal Court proceeded to supplement reasons and concur with the order of status quo passed by the learned Trial Judge.

¶28

¶29