M/S Sea Shell and Anr. Vs Shri. Pradeep Halder and Ors.

This revisional application is directed against an order dated January 06, 2026, passed by the first Appellate Court, dismissing the present petitioners’ appeal filed against an interlocutory order dated December 15, 2025, passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the petitioners’ application for vacating an interim order of status quo, in respect of the suit property, that had been passed earlier by the learned Trial Court.

¶12

It appears that the petitioners purchased a plot of land from the mother of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein, who are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 101/2021 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), South Andaman, Port Blair. The petitioners have annexed to this application, a copy of the registered sale deed and also annexed no objection certificates obtained from the respondent Nos. 1 to 9, being the legal heirs of the original owner i.e. Himangini Halder @ Hemangini Haldar.

¶13

2

¶14

The petitioners say that the present malafide suit has been filed by the plaintiffs after seven years of sale of the property by their mother to the petitioners. Partition has been sought for of a large plot of land including the plot purchased by the petitioners. Initially, an ex parte ad interim order of status quo was passed by the learned Trial Court in respect of the suit property. The petitioners herein contested the application by filing written objection. The learned Trial Court affirmed the ad interim order of status quo.

¶15

The petitioners herein challenged the said order of status quo before the first Appellate Court. Their challenge failed. Then they came up to this Court by way of a civil revisional application being CO/44/2024. By an order dated March 11, 2025, the said application was disposed of with the following observations:-

¶16

“5. In the revisional jurisdiction, I am not going to entertain the argument that the said document is relevant, hence the order of the trial court is required to be set aside. There is a provision in the Code Civil Procedure under Order 39 Rule 4 which permits the parties at any stage of proceedings to apply for vacating the interim order on the ground stated therein. Moreover, written statements have been filed and the said document is a contentious issue. On such consideration I am not inclined to allow this application. However, this order shall not prevent the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law based on the said document. The relevancy of the said document has not been gone into and it is for the trial Court to decide the relevancy of the said documents in the event any application is filed for recalling or modification of the order.”

¶17

It appears that the plaintiffs have filed an application for

¶18

amendment of the plaint to incorporate the prayer for cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners executed by their mother. The contesting defendants in the suit, being the present petitioners, have also filed an application for

¶19

3

¶20

amendment of their written statement to incorporate the sale deed and no objection certificates, which were not mentioned in the written statement originally filed.

¶21

During pendency of those two amendment applications, the petitioners herein applied under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the order of status quo . Copies of the sale deed and no objection certificates were annexed to such vacating petition. The learned Trial Court, however, dismissed such vacating petition primarily on the ground that the written statement is yet to be amended. Therefore, the factum of the registered sale deed and the no objection certificates does not find place in the written statement as it presently stands. Without first amending the written statement, the sale deed and no objection certificates cannot be taken into consideration.

¶22

The petitioners herein appealed against the aforesaid order. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal clarifying only that the status quo order will not stand in the way of the petitioners obtaining electricity connection to the building that they have constructed on the plot of land that they claim to have purchased from the mother of the plaintiffs.

¶23

Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before me by way of this civil revisional application.

¶24

I see from the order dated December 15, 2025, passed by the learned Trial Court that the learned Court did not take into consideration the sale deed and no objection certificates filed along with vacating petition by the present petitioners. That was

¶25

4

¶26

not proper. Irrespective of whether or not the written statement has been amended as of date, it was the duty of the learned Trial Court to at least consider the sale deed and no objection certificates produced by the petitioners herein. Even the order dated March 11, 2025, passed by a coordinate Bench in the earlier revisional application records that the issue of relevancy of the sale deed has to be gone into by the Trial Court, in the event, any application for recalling or modification of the status quo , order is made. The petitioners had applied for vacating the status quo order on the strength of sale deed and no objection certificates. The petitioners naturally claimed to be owner of the plot covered by the said sale deed. The learned Trail Court definitely should have considered and examined the said sale deed and no objection certificates to form a prima facie opinion.

¶27

Hence, I set aside the order of the learned Trial Court dated December 15, 2025, and the order of the first Appellate Court dated January 06, 2026. As a result, the vacating petition of the present petitioners stands resurrected. I direct the learned Trail Court to consider the vacating petition afresh in the light of the observations made in this order.

¶28

The plaintiffs and other defendants supporting the plaintiffs will be at liberty to file their written objection to the vacating petition within a week from date. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed by the present petitioners within two days thereafter, as suggested by learned advocate for the petitioners.

¶29

The learned Trail Court shall consider the vacating petition afresh after exchange of pleadings, as aforesaid.

¶30

5

¶31

I clarify that I have not expressed any opinion nor have I gone into the merits of the claims and counter claims made by the respective parties. The learned Trail Court shall pass an order on the vacating petition, in accordance with law, in the light what has been observed in this order.

¶32

Since the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court for some time, it is desirable that the vacating petition is disposed of on an early date and preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the learned Trial Court.

¶33

CO/6/2026 is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶35

( Arijit Banerjee, J. )

M/S Sea Shell and Anr. v. Shri. Pradeep Halder and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sea Shell and Anr. v. Shri. Pradeep Halder and Ors.

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

Shri.P.Marudhu Pandian Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Kamaleshan Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.

U Nasar Khan Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Shri.J.Krishna Kumar Vs the Director

Smti.Poornam Vs the Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Anjana Mistry Vs the Superintending Engineer and Anr.