Dismissed¶25

Mahammad Aalimuddin@Alimaddin MD and Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Ors.

Calcutta HC19 May 2026CO/35/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.O. 35 of 2026; High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri; Arindam Mukherjee, J.; Order 39 Rule 1 & 2; Section 151 CPC; status quo definition; interim injunction reinstated by First Appellate Court; miscellaneous appeal; suit for declaration and permanent injunction; plaintiffs' pleaded possession; partition suit precedents distinguished; Nemai Chandra Mahalder (2019) 4 CAL LT 405; Sk. Khursed / Sk. Mantajuddin (2016) 2 CHN 421; UMA Forzing Works, C.O. 1753 of 2019 (unreported, 27-06-2023); prima facie interlocutory view; revision dismissed without costs; expedition direction to Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

None; the revisional application failed and was dismissed without any order as to costs. ¶25

Mahammad Aalimuddin@Alimaddin MD and Ors. Vs Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the revisional application failed and was dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Appellate Court's order reinstating the injunction was defective because status quo was left undefined, contrary to the view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as contended by the petitioners. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

The First Appellate Court did not pass an undefined order of status quo; the impugned order expressly defined status quo as to the nature, character and possession over the suit property as on that date, to be followed by the parties to the suit/appellants.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

A defendant interested in denying the plaintiffs' pleaded possession must show without doubt that the defendants are in possession, which can be done only at the trial of the suit; at the interlocutory stage an order is passed on the basis of a prima facie view.

¶19

Key takeaways

The judgments relied upon by the petitioners do not throw much light in respect of a suit for declaration where the plaintiffs have categorically stated to be in possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property.ratio¶18
The judgments in Nemai Chandra Mahalder (supra) and Sk. Mantajuddin (supra) were rendered in connection with partition suits, where the situation is completely different from the instant declaration suit.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil revision (C.O. 35 of 2026, High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, Arindam Mukherjee, J.) by the defendants against the First Appellate Court's judgment and order dated 13th February, 2026 reinstating the interim injunction in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in which the plaintiffs had pleaded possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit land. The Court held that the impugned order was not an undefined status quo order — it fixed status quo as to the nature, character and possession over the suit property as on that date, to be followed by the parties; that the precedents pressed by the defendants — Nemai Chandra Mahalder (2019) 4 CAL LT 405 and Sk. Mantajuddin (2016) 2 CHN 421, both partition-suit rulings, and the unreported UMA Forzing Works judgment in C.O. 1753 of 2019 — did not govern a declaration suit with categorically pleaded plaintiff possession; and that the defendants' claim of dispossession at the plaintiffs' hands was unsubstantiated, no independent petition or separate proceeding having been brought and the claimed possession being unrecorded, possession being provable or refutable only at trial on a prima facie interlocutory view. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the revision without costs and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.

¶1

19.05.2026 Ct. no.7. Sl. No.17 pp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶3

C.O. 35 of 2026

¶4

Mahammad Aalimuddin @ Alimaddin Md. & Ors. Vs.

¶5

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Tapash Kumar Bhattacharya, Mr. Bikash Singha, Mr. Sukanta Sarkar

¶7

… for the petitioners.

¶8

Ms. Supriya Singh, Ms. Susmita Ghosh ….for the opposite parties.

¶9

In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the plaintiffs have categorically stated in paragraph 5 thereof to have been possessing, occupying and enjoying the suit land. On the basis of such statements, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, CPC).

¶10

The Trial Court initially granted an order of injunction. The said application was contested by the defendants. After contested hearing, the ad interim order of injunction was vacated and the application made by the plaintiffs for injunction was dismissed.

¶11

¶12

The plaintiffs preferred a miscellaneous appeal against the said judgment and order dated 3^rd December, 2025. The First Appellate Court has set aside the said order and reinstated the injunction.

¶13

The defendants, on being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the First Appellate Court dated 13^th February, 2026 has filed this revisional application.

¶14

The main contention of the petitioners is that the Trial Court had passed an order without defining the status quo which is contrary to the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioners further say that the First Appellate Court has also not defined the status quo , but has passed an order reinstating the order of injunction. 6. The petitioners have relied upon the judgments reported in (2019) 4 CAL LT 405 (Nemai Chandra Mahalder & Ors. vs. Dilip Ram & Ors.), (2016) 2 CHN 421 (Sk. Khursed & Ors. vs. Sk. Mantajuddin & Ors.) and an unreported judgment dated 27^th June, 2023 passed in C.O. 1753 of 2019 (M/s. Messerger Courier & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. vs. UMA Forzing Works (P) Ltd. & Ors.)

¶15

After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, it is found that the First Appellate Court did not pass an undefined order of

¶16

¶17

status quo . The order is “there will be an order of stauts quo so far the nature, character and possession over the suit property are concerned as on this date as to be followed by the parties to the suit/appellants herein”.

¶18

The judgments relied upon by the petitioners do not throw much light in respect of a suit for declaration where the plaintiffs have categorically stated to be in possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property.

¶19

The defendants, if interested to deny such possession, they are required to show without any doubt that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. This can be done only at the trial of the suit. At the interlocutory stage, on the basis of the prima facie view, an order is passed. The materials available before the First Appellate Court has been considered, discussed and then only the order impugned has been passed.

¶20

The judgment in Nemai Chandra Mahalder (supra) and Sk. Mantajuddin (supra) were in connection with partition suits where the situation is completely different as the record of rights may show the land to be recorded in the name of any of the co-owners but the same is in joint possession which is used and enjoyed jointly by the members of the family. The judgment in UMA Forzing Works

¶21

¶22

(P) Ltd. (supra) also does not apply to the facts of the instant case.

¶23

The further contention of the petitioners that they are in possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs by taking advantage of the order of status quo has started disturbing the possession of the defendants/petitioners is also not convincing. The petitioners have not asserted such right either by filing an independent petition or filing separate proceedings which would have been the normal course, if such thing had happened. The possession as claimed by the petitioners is also not borne out from any record.

¶24

In the aforesaid facts and facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned.

¶25

The revisional application, therefor, fails and the same is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

¶26

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶27

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking

¶28

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)

Mahammad Aalimuddin@Alimaddin MD and Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahammad Aalimuddin@Alimaddin MD and Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amitabha Dutta @ Amitava Datta Vs Achinta Dutta and Ors.

Banashree Adhikary Vs Sandip Das

Sarwan Kumar Agarwalla @ Sarwan Agarwala @ Sarwan Kumar Agarwala Vs Debabrata Shah and Ors.

Santanu Biswas Vs Rikta Behara and Anr.

Merico Tea Estates Limited Vs Mukesh Kumar Agarwal and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Saha@Sanjay Kumar Shaha@Sanjay Kr Shaha and Ors. Vs Phup Tshering Sherpa and Ors.