Court No. 6 (265719) 08.07.2026 (AD 4) (S. Banerjee) CO 1946 of 2026 Pratik Sarkar & Anr. Vs. Jayati Chatterjee & Ors. Mr. Ashok Kumar Banerjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Tapojit Dey Ms. Ishita Ghosh Mr. Suraj Kumar Shaw …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 and is directed against a judgment and order dated April 9, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Barasat in Misc. Appeal No. 108 of 2025. By the judgment and order impugned, the learned Judge of the appellate Court modified the order of status quo passed by the learned trial judge. The opposite-party no. 1 claims to be the married wife of opposite-party no. 3. The opposite- party no. 1 states that there is a son born out of the wedlock between the opposite-party nos. 1 and 3 and opposite-party no. 3 used to torture the opposite- party no. 1 and physically assaulted her on several occasions. Being unable to bear the torture by the opposite-party no. 3, the opposite-party no. 1 left the matrimonial house and started residing in a tenanted 2 house. The opposite-party no. 1 alleges that the husband/opposite-party no. 3 forged the signature of the opposite-party no. 1 in a no-objection certificate for removal of her name from the agreement and the deed of conveyance. The opposite-party no. 1 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 608 of 2022 praying for a decree for declaration that the alleged relinquishment letter termed as no-objection certificate for removal of her name from the agreement and the deed of conveyance executed on June 30, 2022, has not been executed by her and for a further declaration that she is entitled to undivided half share of the B scheduled property and for a further declaration that the deed of conveyance executed and registered on February 16, 2022, is void, unlawful and inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff/opposite-party no. 1 and the same be delivered up. The opposite-party no. 1 also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction. In connection with the said suit, the opposite- party no. 1 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial judge, by an order being no. 23 dated June 26, 2025, directed the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the said suit to maintain status quo in respect of the suit scheduled property till the disposal of the suit. The injunction application was disposed of on contest by the said order. 3 Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a Misc. Appeal being no. 108 of 2025 before the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Barasat. The learned Judge of the appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and order, modified the order of status quo passed by the learned trial judge only to the extent of not creating any third-party interest in the suit property and the respondent no. 1, i.e., the opposite-party no. 1 herein was restrained from disturbing the possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the said suit. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the learned judge of the appellate Court while allowing the misc. appeal could not have passed the restraint order against the petitioner who was the appellant in the misc. appeal. After going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the learned Judge of the appellate Court recorded that there is a prima facie dispute which needs to be evaluated on trial specially concerning the no-objection allegedly executed by the opposite-party no. 1 herein. It is further recorded in the said order that all the subsequent deeds and their respective legal enforceability is based on finding as to the no-objection allegedly executed by the respondent no. 1 being the plaintiff in the said suit. 4 In the light of the aforesaid finding, the learned Judge of the appellate Court modified the order of injunction restraining the creation of third-party interest in the suit property. This Court finds that since there is a prima facie dispute as to the no-objection alleged to have been executed by the opposite-party, unless further transfer of the suit property is restricted, it would result in multiplicity of proceedings. The learned Judge of the appellate Court assigned cogent reason in support of the ultimate conclusion. For such reason this Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of jurisdiction of the learned Judge of the appellate Court. Accordingly CO 1946 of 2026 stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)