AD – 34 Ct No.16 07.07.2026 (SSS) FMA 671 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 Dilip Roy and Ors. Vs. Panch Kori Roy and Ors. Mr. Sharanya Chatterjee, Mr. Subhajit Barman, Ms. Riya Kundu ……For the appellants. 1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the defendants/appellants’ application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to vacate an ad-interim order of injunction granted in a partition suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, was refused. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the ad-interim order of injunction was obtained by suppression of the material fact that the appellants are exclusive owners of a portion of the suit property. 3. Learned counsel argues that although the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 6 took the plea that only a portion of the plot was sold to the appellants, still, the said fact was germane and ought to have been disclosed while obtaining the ad-interim injunction, thereby vitiating the grant of ad-interim injunction itself. 4. However, it is an arguable fact and is required to be decided at the time of final hearing of the temporary injunction application, as well as in the suit on trial, as to whether the appellants are exclusive or partial owners in respect of the concerned plot. In any event, in the absence of any specific plea of partition by metes and bounds between the co-sharers and, even if the court proceeds on the basis that the appellants are co- owners of the said plot, in view of the impleadment of the present appellants and the inclusion of the said plot in the hotchpot of the partition suit, the frame of the suit cannot be faulted on such count alone. 5. Thus, non-disclosure of the concerned fact is not a “material fact” justifying the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be attracted, since the suppression itself was not of a material fact. 6. In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 7. In any event, the above findings as well as the findings rendered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order are tentative in nature, subject to the final adjudication of the temporary 2 injunction application as well as the suit. It is made clear that the learned Trial Judge will be at liberty to decide the injunction application and the suit independently on their own merits without being influenced in any manner by any of the above observations or the observations made in the impugned order. 8. Hence, FMA 671 of 2026 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the light of the above observations. 9. CAN 1 of 2026 is consequentially dismissed as well. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. In view of the submission of the appellants that the pleadings in connection with the temporary injunction application before the Trial Court have already been concluded, it is expected that the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the temporary injunction application itself as expeditiously as the business of the said court permits, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the learned Trial Judge. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) 3 (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) 4