Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya & The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya FMA No. 1869 of 2025 + CAN 2 of 2025 Smt. Abira Acharjee (nee Bhattacharya) and another -vs- Smt. Saheli Ganguly For the appellants : Mr. Debasish Banerjee, Smt. Krishnakali Swar, Mr. Prosun Chatterjee, Ms. Soma Dey, Mr. Rakesh Jana, Advs. For the respondent : Mr. Jitesh Sah, Ms. Sushma Baruah, Ms. Debanjana Sen, Advs. Heard on : July 20, 2026. Judgment on : July 20, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.: 1. In view of the short ambit of the appeal, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing along with the application. 2 2. The appellants, who are respectively the mother-in-law and the husband of the respondent, have filed the suit from which the present appeal arises, seeking damages for alleged defamatory comments being made by the respondent in the social media against the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes such allegations and argues that the learned trial Judge refused to pass ad interim injunction since there are no social media post available at present to indicate the involvement of the respondent in any such defamatory or derogatory remarks against the appellants. 4. Even on merits, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no defamatory comments have actually been made by the respondent. 5. Needless to say, such submissions of the respondent are controverted by the appellants. 6. Be that as it may, from the several annexures to the injunction application filed before us, which are apparently also a part of the injunction application filed by the appellants in the trial Court, a prima facie case of seriously derogatory comments being made by the respondent against the appellants has been made out. 7. Thus, the apprehension of the appellants regarding further similar comments being made by the respondent seems to be justified, even if we presume that currently there are no such posts on the social media. 8. We are also apprised by learned counsel for the respondent that different litigations are pending between the parties, which all the more creates an apprehension that unless an injunction order is in place, the respondent may 3 make further comments which might partake the character of character assassination and defamation of the appellants. 9. However, while observing so, we make it amply clear that the above observations are only tentative in nature, arrived at for the purpose of deciding the present appeal, and shall not be treated to be conclusive or binding on any of the parties or the learned trial Judge at any further stage of the litigation, be it the final hearing of the injunction application or the disposal of the suit. 10. The learned trial Judge shall be at liberty to decide the injunction application and the suit on their own merits, upon giving adequate opportunity to the parties to make their respective allegations and to rebut the same. 11. However, in view of the above observations, we find that the learned trial Judge erred in law and in fact in refusing ad interim injunction as prayed by the appellants. 12. Accordingly, FMA No. 1869 of 2025 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order, bearing Order No. 1 dated August 13, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Third Court at Barasat, District – North 24 Parganas, in Title Suit No. 881 of 2025, and restraining the respondent by an order of injunction from making any post and/or publication in any media, “social” or otherwise, and/or using the photograph of the minor child of the appellant no. 2 and the respondent in the light of the above restrictions, which may be derogatory, defamatory, sarcastic and/or scandalous and may demean the social prestige of the appellants in any manner whatsoever, till disposal of the temporary injunction application in the trial Court. 4 13. The respondent shall file her written objection to the temporary injunction application of the plaintiffs/appellants in the trial Court within three weeks from date. 14. It is expected that the learned trial Judge shall dispose of the temporary injunction application at the earliest, preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order to the learned trial Judge. 15. CAN 2 of 2025 is also disposed of consequentially. 16. There will be no order as to costs. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)