Disposed¶15

Sunil Kumar Jain and Ors. v. Prasanta Kumar Paul

Calcutta HC1 Apr 2026CO/1032/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court civil revision C.O. 1032 of 2026; temporary injunction; ex parte ad interim order refused; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; suit for specific performance; Title Suit No. 830 of 2025; Misc. Appeal No. 109 of 2025 dismissed by District Judge, Howrah; direction for final hearing of injunction application at ad interim stage; written objection and rejoinder timelines; no costs; Om Narayan Rai, J.

What did the court decide?

C.O. 1032 of 2026 disposed of with directions: opposite party to file written objection to the temporary injunction application within two weeks, rejoinder within a week thereafter; learned Trial Court to finally hear and decide the temporary injunction application independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law; no order as to costs. ¶15

Sunil Kumar Jain and Ors. Vs Prasanta Kumar Paul — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisional application against dismissal of Misc. Appeal No. 109 of 2025 (upholding refusal of the ex parte ad interim injunction in Title Suit No. 830 of 2025) warranted interference, or whether the matter should be left to the trial court to finally hear the temporary injunction application.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Since the parties are still at the ad interim stage, justice would be sub-served if the learned Trial Court is requested to finally hear out the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners.

¶13

Key takeaways

The opposite party shall file his written objection to the Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 application within two weeks (petitioners may file rejoinder within a week thereafter), and the learned Trial Court shall hear out and decide the temporary injunction application independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revisional jurisdiction — C.O. 1032 of 2026, Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Prasanta Kumar Paul (High Court at Calcutta, decided 01.04.2026, Om Narayan Rai, J.). Revision directed against the order dated November 24, 2025 of the learned District Judge, Howrah dismissing Misc. Appeal No. 109 of 2025 — the appeal against refusal (order dated June 10, 2025) of the petitioners' prayer for ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Title Suit No. 830 of 2025 (specific performance of a contract) pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah. Observing that the parties were still at the ad interim stage, the Court did not adjudicate the injunction question but disposed of the revision by directing the trial court to finally hear and decide the temporary injunction application independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law; written objection within two weeks, rejoinder within a week thereafter; no order as to costs.

¶1

01.04.2026 Item No.17 (DL) Court No.06 AJ.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶3

C.O. 1032 of 2026

¶4

< Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors. -VsPrasanta Kumar Paul

¶5

Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, Mr. Chiranjit Pal.

¶6

….for the petitioners. Mr. Asim Banerjee, Mr. Bholanath Pramanick. …..for the opposite party.

¶7

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is

¶8

taken on record.

¶9

This revisional application is directed against an order dated November 24, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 109 of 2025 whereby the misc. appeal itself has been dismissed.

¶10

The petitioners have instituted Title Suit No. 830 of 2025 before the leaned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3^rd Court at Howrah praying inter alia for a decree for specific performance of a contract. In the said suit, the petitioners filed an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Such application was pressed for ex parte ad interim order. By an order dated June 10, 2025 the prayer for ex parte ad interim order was refused.

¶11

¶12

Being aggrieved by such refusal, the petitioners approached the Appellate Court by filing Misc. Appeal No. 109 of 2025. Such misc. appeal has been dismissed by the order impugned.

¶13

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the material-on-record, this Court is of the view that since the parties are still at the ad interim stage, therefore, justice would be sub-served if the learned Trial Court is requested to finally hear out the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners.

¶14

The opposite party herein (defendant in the suit) shall file his written objection to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code filed by the petitioners within two weeks from date, if not already filed. The petitioners shall have liberty to file rejoinder thereto within a week thereafter. The learned Trial Court shall thereafter hear out the application for temporary injunction and decide the same independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶15

C.O. 1032 of 2026 stands disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties

¶17

¶18

subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶19

(Om Narayan Rai, J.)

Sunil Kumar Jain and Ors. v. Prasanta Kumar Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Jain and Ors. v. Prasanta Kumar Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tabla Ram @ Gobinda Ram and Anr. Vs Indrani Singh and Ors.

Bidyut Das Vs Swapan Kumar Biswas

Somnath Cold Storage Private Limited and Ors. Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

Sunil Kishin Punwani Vs Sass Med Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Sk. Baijul Haque and Anr. Vs Tapan Kumar Ghosh

Panji Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Ayan Sadhukhan and Ors.