In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury FMA 1142 of 2025 with CAN 1 of 2025 SHYAMAPADA MISHRA & ORS. VS. BIJOY MANNA & ORS. For the appellants : Mr. Rabindranath Mahato Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray For the respondent : Mr. Krishna Das Poddar Mr. Sujit Bhunia Ms. Mandira Barman Heard on : 05.02.2026 Judgment on : 05.02.2026 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The photocopy of the Solenama filed today be kept on record. 2. In view of the short point involved, the appeal is taken up for hearing along with the application. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of previous partition decrees, whereby the subject property of the present partition suit was partitioned by metes and bounds, the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact in granting temporary injunction. 2 4. Learned counsel hands over a copy of a previous compromise decree and the Solenama which was a part thereof. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents argues that, as rightly held by the learned Trial Judge, there was no partition by metes and bounds and only shares were allotted to the parties. 6. Upon a perusal of the said Solenama, it transpires that the allotments between the parties to the previous partition suit were made in terms of which part of the property and to what extent they would be allotted such shares. 7. However, it is an arguable question as to whether merely by virtue of mentioning the direction of the allotted share (e.g. “Eastern side”) and the measurement of the share, it could be said that specific demarcated portions had been allotted to the parties by metes and bounds. 8. Thus, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Trial Judge inasmuch as the learned Trial Judge observed that from the documents filed by the defendants it prima facie appears that the earlier two partitions of the suit property were held only in respect of shares but not by metes and bounds, though in the partition in the 1948 suit specific portions were mentioned but not by metes and bounds. 3 9. The learned Trial Judge, after so observing, proceeded to hold that the said issues are to be conclusively determined at the stage of trial. Thus, one of the plausible views possible on the materials on record was taken by the learned Trial Judge. Hence, there is no scope of interference in the appeal. 10. Accordingly, FMA 1142 of 2025 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the impugned order, bearing Order No.11 dated June 03, 2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kharagpur, District – Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No.92 of 2024. 11. However, it is made clear that the merits of the contentions of the parties in the suit have not been gone into by this Court and it will be open to the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the suit independently on its own merits. 12. In the event the defendants file their written statements in the suit within a fortnight from date, the learned Trial Judge shall make all endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of communication of this order to the learned Trial Judge. 13. CAN 1 of 2025 is also disposed of accordingly. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 4 16. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) 05.02.2026 Item no. DL 34 Court No. 16 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.)