Arup Rana Vs Karuna Rana and Ors.

In view of a strong prima facie case for hearing of the appeal on merits having been made out, the appeal is admitted and will be heard on the grounds as taken in the memorandum of appeal.

¶19

Since the ambit of the appeal is extremely limited, we give a proposal to both the contesting parties to take up the appeal along with the application for final disposal by dispensation of paper books as well as trial court records.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent nos. 1 to 5, who are the primary contesting respondents, in his usual fairness, agrees to such proposal of the appeal being decided finally.

¶21

Service of notice on the respondent nos. 6 to 18 and the proforma respondent no. 19, against whom no relief has been sought in the appeal, is dispensed with.

¶22

By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge disposed of finally an injunction application, however, without adverting to the merits of the injunction application and the written objection at all, merely on the premise that since there was already a prevalent ad interim order of status quo as regards possession and nature and character of the suit property, the learned Trial Judge found it just to extend the said order in the form of status quo till disposal of the suit.

¶23

3

¶24

It is common knowledge that there is a distinction between a mere extension of an ad interim order granted at the initial stage and a final hearing of an injunction order. There are several stages to the hearing of an injunction application. Whereas an ad interim order is passed on certain yardsticks, the observations made while passing the same are not binding at the final hearing of the injunction application, which is to be decided on contest upon adverting to the contentions of all the contesting parties.

¶25

While deciding the temporary injunction application finally, it is the incumbent duty of the civil court to advert to the allegations made in the injunction application and the written objection, if any, and decide on a full-fledged hearing the injunction application on its own merits. However, the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Judge was cryptic. The learned Trial Judge merely treated the final hearing of the injunction application as an application for extension of the ad interim order passed earlier and mechanically extended the same till disposal of the suit, in the process deciding the temporary injunction application without adjudicating the same on merits and/or adverting to the respective pleadings and contentions of the parties.

¶26

Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is bad on the above score as well as devoid of reasons as such.

¶27

Accordingly, FMAT 41 of 2025 is allowed on contest against the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and ex parte against the other respondents/proforma respondents, thereby setting aside the impugned order bearing Order No. 11 dated June 10, 2024 passed by

¶28

4

¶29

the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No. 583 of 2022 and remanding the matter to the learned Trial Judge for a fresh adjudication of the temporary injunction application on merits in the light of the above observations, upon giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides.

¶30

It is, however, made clear that the ad interim order of status quo as regards possession and nature and character of the suit property, which was subsisting at the juncture of passing of the impugned order, is hereby revived and shall continue till disposal of the temporary injunction application by the learned Trial Judge.

¶31

It is expected that the learned Trial Judge shall decide the injunction application afresh on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the learned Trial Judge.

¶32