In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya FMAT No. 161 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 Rightex Trading Private Ltd. Vs. Lambawala Tea Plantation Private Ltd. and others For the appellant : Mr. Abir Lal Chakravorti, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gaurab Kumar Das, Mr. Sumalya Chakraborty, Advs. Heard on : 21.07.2026 Judgment on : 21.07.2026 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. The present appeal has been preferred against the refusal of ad interim injunction in connection with a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of a tea garden filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the impugned order, refusing ad interim injunction, is cryptic and is devoid of any reason for such refusal. 4. That apart, it is pointed out that the plaintiff/appellant duly produced a deed of lease executed in favour of the plaintiff by the Government of West Bengal as 2 well as extracts of the entries in the LR records of rights in the appellant’s name, which were all considered by the learned trial Judge along with police complaints and photographs substantiating the case of disturbance by the respondents; however, the learned Trial Judge still refused to grant injunction. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents argues that the plaintiff/appellant was granted lease only in respect of a portion of two of the subject plots, the balance portions of which was let out by the Government to the respondents. Insofar as the rest of the plots are concerned, those were let out in their entirety to the appellants. 6. Taking advantage of the ad interim protection granted by this Court, it is submitted that the appellant is trying to disturb the possession of the respondents in respect of the latter’s leasehold portion, which comprises of the balance of the plots-in-question. 7. Learned senior counsel further argues that in absence of any specific particulars of the exact portion of the plots conferred by way of lease in favour of the plaintiff, no injunction could be granted. 8. In view of the identity of the arguments in the injunction application and the appeal and the short conspectus of the same, we take up the appeal itself for hearing along with the connected application. 9. At the very first blush, it is evident that the impugned order is devoid of reasons. 10. The learned trial Judge, in the impugned order, categorically recorded that he perused the Deed of 2007 and LRROR Khatian in the name of the plaintiff/Tea Plantation Company, from which the learned trial Judge found 3 that the plaintiff took the lease which will be in force till 2027, and also the police complaints and photographs, despite which the learned Trial Judge refused to grant injunction on the specious plea that he was not inclined to pass any ex parte order at that stage without hearing the other side. 11. Such approach is de hors the law. It was the bounden duty of the learned trial Judge to advert to the materials and averments made in the plaint and the injunction application before the Judge even at the stage of ex parte ad interim injunction and to decide the issues involved accordingly. 12. However, since a contention has been raised regarding the leasehold rights of the respondents with regard to the rest of the plots than which were let out to the plaintiff/appellant, for the ends of justice, it would only be appropriate if the learned Trial Judge appoints a Survey-passed Commissioner to hold a local investigation under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compare the respective deeds of the parties and to ascertain to exact portion of the subject property which was let out to the plaintiff/appellant. 13. In the meantime, in view of the documents before us, which were also placed before the learned Trial Judge, we find that a prima facie arguable case is made out, entitling the plaintiff/appellant to interim protection at this stage. 14. However, we make it abundantly clear that this Court has not conclusively decided any of the issues involved in the suit and/or the injunction application pending in the Trial Court and it will be open to the learned Trial Judge to decide the temporary injunction application independently on its own merits without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made herein. 4 15. Accordingly, FMAT No. 161 of 2026 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated April 24, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Islampur, District- Uttar Dinajpur, in Title Suit No. 08 of 2026 and restraining the respondents by an order of injunction from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant in respect of the suit property till disposal of the temporary injunction application pending in the Trial Court. 16. The respondents shall filed their written objection to the temporary injunction application in the Trial Court, thereby disclosing the lease deeds and other documents on which the respondents rely in support of their rights to the other portions of the concerned plots, within a fortnight from date. 17. The learned Trial Judge shall, in the meantime, by acting on a server copy of this order, appoint a Survey-passed Commissioner for holding local investigation to ascertain the exact portion of the let-out plots to the plaintiff/appellant in respect of Serial nos. 1 and 2 of the Schedule to the plaint and the injunction application, pertaining to plot no. 26 and plot no. 01 in Uttar Besarbari Para, J.L.No.64. 18. Since the respondents do not dispute the rights of the plaintiff/appellant with regard to the plots mentioned in the other serial numbers, that is, Serial nos. 03 to 12 of the said Schedule, no such order of local investigation need be passed in respect of the said plots. 19. It is expected that the entire exercise of appointment of Survey-passed Commissioner and filing of report by the said Commissioner shall be 5 completed within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the learned Trial Judge. 20. The learned Trial Judge shall make all endeavour to dispose of the temporary injunction application in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of such communication. 21. CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of accordingly. 22. Interim order, if any, granted in connection with the appeal stands automatically vacated. 23. There will be no order as to costs. 24. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)