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 FMAT 199 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 Sri Malaya Nanda Roy Vs. Smt. Debashree Majumder For the appellant : Mr. Dhananjay Nayak, Ms. Rituparna Ghosh, Mr. Sourav Sardar, Advs. For the respondent : Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Advs. Heard on : July 27, 2026. Judgment on : July 27, 2026. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J. : 1. Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record. 2. Both sides are represented through counsel. The scope of the appeal is extremely limited. 3. In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant, a temporary and ad-interim injunction application was filed. At the ad-interim stage, the learned Trial Judge refused to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction on the sole ground that whereas injunction was sought in the temporary injunction application in respect of the schedule property, there was no schedule in the injunction application. 4. While admitting the appeal and granting ad-interim order in respect of the present appeal, we had recorded categorically that a prima facie case was made out, since the prayer portion of the injunction application refers specifically to the schedule property in the suit whereas the plaint of the suit clearly contains a schedule. 5. That apart, both the plaint and the injunction application categorically describe the schedule property. Thus, the refusal to grant ad-interim injunction was erroneous on such ground. 2 6. Although a prima facie case regarding possession of the appellant was also made out inasmuch as mutation certificate and other documents were produced at that stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer for injunction and disputes the possession of the plaintiff/appellant in respect of the subject property. It is also pointed out that an independent partition suit is also pending in respect of the self-same property. 7. However, at the ex parte ad-interim stage, the scope of examination of the learned Trial Judge was limited to the averments made in the plaint and the injunction application and new facts, even if the respondent is equipped with any, could not be brought in at that stage, unless a written objection to the injunction application was filed in the Trial Court. Thus, as an appellate court, we cannot also look into documents which were not (and could not be) before the learned Trial Judge. 8. Hence, it would be premature to enter into the merits of the matter. Since the appeal and the application involve similar questions, instead of prolonging the agony of both the parties by keeping the appeal pending, we intend to dispose of the appeal in the manner enumerated below:- 3 FMAT 199 of 2026 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order, bearing Order no. 1 dated June 11, 2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sealdah, District – South 24 Parganas in Title Suit No. 117 of 2026 and directing both parties to maintain status quo as regards the suit property, including the nature and character, creation of third party interest as well as possession, till disposal of the temporary injunction application in the Trial Court. 9. The defendant/respondent shall file her written objection to the injunction application within a fortnight from date in the Trial Court. 10. It is expected that the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the injunction application on merits, upon hearing both parties and in accordance with law, as expeditiously thereafter as possible, preferably within six weeks thereafter. 11. It is made amply clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter at all and the above findings are all tentative, leaving it open to the learned Trial Judge to adjudicate the injunction application as well the suit on their own merits in accordance with law without being influenced by the above observations and/or the observations made in the impugned order in any manner whatsoever. 12. CAN 1 of 2026 stands disposed of consequentially. 4 13. No order as to costs. 14. Urgent certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. I agree. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) AD -22 Ct No.16 27.07.2026 (SSS) 5