Dismissed¶16

Samarendra Nath Paul and Ors. v. Rabindra Nath Rishidas and Ors.

Calcutta HC7 Jul 2025FMA/684/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

F.M.A. 684 of 2021 (decided 7th July, 2025; Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ.): maintainability of a further appeal against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Appeal; rejection of a police help application in the trial court; ad interim injunction and its purported modification; appeal dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to challenge the trial court's refusal of police help by a properly constituted challenge; CAN 1 of 2021 dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellants to challenge the order of the trial court refusing police help by way of a properly constituted challenge before the appropriate court; CAN 1 of 2021 dismissed as well; no order as to costs. ¶16

Samarendra Nath Paul and Ors. Vs Rabindra Nath Rishidas and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the present appeal (F.M.A. 684 of 2021) is maintainable, being a further appeal against an order passed in connection with a Miscellaneous Appeal. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

No further appeal lies against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Appeal; accordingly, F.M.A. 684 of 2021 is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

No appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting police help.

¶14

Key takeaways

There was no occasion for the appellate court to entertain the appeal at all and/or, even if entertained, to deem the rejection of a police help application to be a modification of the injunction order whose implementation was sought.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintainability - Further appeal against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Appeal not permissible. The plaintiffs/appellants held an ad interim injunction which, though modified, continued to operate in their favour; the trial court refused their application for police help to implement it. On the Miscellaneous Appeal against that refusal, the impugned order purportedly rejected a prayer for ad interim injunction, the appellate court below having treated the police-help prayer as one for modification of the injunction. Holding that (i) no appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting police help, (ii) the appellate court below had no occasion to entertain such an appeal or to convert the rejection of a police help application into a modification of the injunction order, and (iii) no further appeal lies against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Appeal, the Court dismissed F.M.A. 684 of 2021 as not maintainable, granting liberty to mount a properly constituted challenge before the appropriate court against the trial court's refusal of police help; CAN 1 of 2021 dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

7^th July, 2025 (AK) 29

¶2

F.M.A. 684 of 2021 IA No: CAN 1 of 2021

¶3

Samarendra Nath Paul and others Vs. Rabindranath Rishidas and others

¶4

Mr. Suman Sankar Chatterjee Ms. Bidisha Chakraborty Ms. Sadia Parveen

¶5

...for the appellants.

¶6

The present appeal poses certain peculiar circumstances.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs/appellants obtained an order of ad interim injunction in the trial court.

¶8

Subsequently, the said order was modified.

¶9

However, even after the modification, the same enured to the benefit of the plaintiffs/appellants.

¶10

To implement the ad interim order of injunction, the appellants filed an application for police help in the trial court.

¶11

Such police help application being rejected, a Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred. In connection with the said Miscellaneous Appeal, by the present impugned order, a prayer for ad interim injunction was purportedly rejected.

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants, however, insists that the only prayer sought was for police help which the appellate court below treated to be one for modification of the injunction order.

¶14

The peculiarity of the matter is that first, no appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting police help and secondly, there was no occasion for the appellate court to entertain the appeal at all and/or, even if entertained, to deem the rejection of a police help application to be a modification of the injunction order of which implementation was sought.

¶15

Be that as it may, in any event, no further appeal lies against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶16

Accordingly, FMA 684 of 2021 is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the appellants to challenge the order of the trial court refusing police help by way of a properly constituted challenge before the appropriate court.

¶17

CAN 1 of 2021 is, accordingly, dismissed as well.

¶18

There will be no order as to costs.

¶19

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶20

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Samarendra Nath Paul and Ors. v. Rabindra Nath Rishidas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samarendra Nath Paul and Ors. v. Rabindra Nath Rishidas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankari Sett and Ors. Vs Deb Narayan Bose and Anr.

Parveen Jain and Anr. Vs Tulsan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Emami Limited Vs Dabur India Limited

Asit Naran Mitra Vs Amiya Kumar Mitra and Ors.

Sajib Maity Vs Kalpana Mondal

MD Habibullah Khan and Ors. Vs Ajijullah Khan