Dismissed¶20

Sahidul Islam and Ors. v. Uday Chakraborty and Ors.

Calcutta HC22 May 2025FMAT/154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FMAT 154 of 2025 (with IA No: CAN 1 of 2025), Sahidul Islam and others v. Sri Uday Chakraborty and others - refusal of ad interim injunction upheld; appeal dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC; Section 10 CPC bar owing to pendency of previous partition suit Title Suit No. 313 of 2012 on same cause of action; status quo order dated March 03, 2016 in FMA 592 of 2015 still subsisting covering the reliefs sought; destruction/reconstruction of court records and torn order sheets; recourse to District Judge, North 24 Parganas; merits of both suits left undecided.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is vitiated by lack of reasons, but the Court finds no reason to interfere since it agrees with the conclusion thereof. ¶19

Sahidul Islam and Ors. Vs Uday Chakraborty and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether ad interim injunction should be granted to the plaintiff-appellants in their fresh partition suit notwithstanding the pendency of the previous partition suit (Title Suit No. 313 of 2012) on the self-same cause of action. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

With the previous partition suit pending on the self-same cause of action and on the strength of the same right, title and interest of the parties, the principle of Section 10 CPC applies and a second suit is prima facie barred.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order is vitiated by lack of reasons, but the Court finds no reason to interfere since it agrees with the conclusion thereof.

¶19

Key takeaways

Apart from the order sheets being in completely torn condition, there is nothing to show that the records of Title Suit No. 313 of 2012 have been otherwise destroyed.ratio¶14
It remains open to the parties to the previous suit to approach the concerned court and/or the District Judge having administrative control over North 24 Parganas for reconstruction of the records and/or tracing the file of the case.obiter¶16
The reliefs sought in the present injunction application have already been granted and remain subsisting through the status quo order of March 03, 2016 in FMA 592 of 2015, denuding the appellants of any cause of action for seeking further injunction on the self-same grounds.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal against refusal of ad interim injunction dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC. Though the impugned order was found vitiated by lack of reasons, the Court declined to interfere as it agreed with its conclusion: (i) the previous partition suit, Title Suit No. 313 of 2012, on the self-same cause of action and the same right, title and interest is still pending, so Section 10 CPC prima facie bars the second suit; (ii) the status quo order dated March 03, 2016 passed in FMA 592 of 2015 (arising out of Title Suit No. 313 of 2012) still subsists, granting the very reliefs now sought and denuding the appellants of any cause of action for further injunction on the self-same grounds; (iii) apart from the order sheets being in completely torn condition, nothing shows the suit records destroyed, and the parties may seek reconstruction of the records or tracing of the file from the concerned court or the District Judge having administrative control over North 24 Parganas. The merits of both suits were expressly left untouched. Consequentially, IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 was disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

AD-88 Ct No.16 22.05.2025 TN

¶2

FMAT 154 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025

¶3

Sahidul Islam and others Vs.

¶4

Sri Uday Chakraborty and others

¶5

Mr. Arnab Roy, Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Mr. Purnendu Shekhar Ghosh

¶6

….for the appellants

¶7

The present appeal has been preferred against an order refusing ad interim injunction at the behest of the plaintiffs/appellants.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that previously a partition suit was filed by the appellants, in which temporary injunction was refused by the learned Trial Judge. Having come up in appeal against the said order, this Court disposed of the said appeal, bearing FMA 592 of 2015, thereby directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards the nature and character of the suit property till disposal of the partition suit as well as restraining both the parties from raising any construction and/or further construction over the suit property and/or from changing the nature and character thereof till disposal of the suit.

¶9

The parties were also directed to maintain status quo with regard to their possession in the suit property till the disposal of the suit.

¶10

¶11

Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellants submits, the records of the said suit were completely destroyed. By relying on an information slip annexed at page-60 of the injunction application filed in the present appeal, it is pointed out that the order sheets of the suit bearing Title Suit No. 313 of 2012 are in completely torn condition, although the suit is still pending.

¶12

It is submitted that the appellants are facing a situation where they have an existing suit but they cannot press for the remedy in the absence of the records of the said suit. Being thus compelled, a fresh partition suit has been filed, in connection with which the present injunction was sought.

¶13

Upon a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the same is vitiated by lack of reasons. However, we are unable to interfere for other reasons as enumerated below:

¶14

Whatever might be the present condition of the records of Title Suit No. 313 of 2012, the said partition suit on the self-same cause of action and on the strength of the same right, title and interest of the parties as claimed in the present, is still pending. Although the order sheets of the same are in a completely torn condition as per the information slip produced before us, there is nothing to show that the records have been otherwise destroyed. In any event, it is always open for the parties to the said suit to

¶15

¶16

approach the concerned court and/or the learned District Judge having administrative control in the concerned District, that is, the District of North 24 Parganas, for taking appropriate steps for reconstruction of the records and/or tracing the file of the case.

¶17

Be that as it may, in the teeth of the pendency of the previous partition suit, the principle of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies and a second suit is prima facie barred.

¶18

That apart, we find from the judgment and order dated March 03, 2016 passed in FMA 592 of 2015, which arose out of Title Suit No. 313 of 2012, that the said status quo order is still subsisting. Thus, the reliefs sought in the present injunction application in the second suit have already been granted and are subsisting in favour of the appellants in connection with the previous suit, bearing Title Suit No. 313 of 2012, thus denuding the appellants from any cause of action for seeking further injunction on the self-same grounds.

¶19

Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, although we are not happy with the sufficiency of reasons attributed therein, but since we agree with the conclusion thereof.

¶20

Accordingly, in the light of the observations made above, FMAT 154 of 2025 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶21

¶22

Consequentially, IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 is also

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

There will be no order as to costs.

¶25

It is made clear that the merits of the respective contentions of the parties in the present suit or in the previous suit have not been touched upon by us and it will be open to the concerned Court(s), where the said suits are pending, to decide such suits on their own merits.

¶26

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

¶27

(Uday Kumar, J.)

Sahidul Islam and Ors. v. Uday Chakraborty and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahidul Islam and Ors. v. Uday Chakraborty and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidyut Saraf and Anr. Vs Edenic Propbuild Private Limited and Ors.

Vidyut Saraf and Anr. Vs Edenic Probuild Private Limited and Ors.

Ajit Kumar Ghosh Vs Kamala Dasgupta and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Paul Vs Subramania Kumar , M.D., and CEO and Ors.

Avik Ghosh and Ors. Vs Sukumar Ghosh and Ors.

Abhijit Mitra Vs Smt Dipa Mitra Ghosh