20.08.2026 DL-49 Ct. No. 39 Srimanta In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side CO 1492 of 2025 MD. DILWAR HOSSAIN & ORS. -Vs.- MASUD ALAM & ORS. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mondal, Mr. Abhirup Halder …for the petitioners. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Raju Bhattacharyya …for the opposite party nos. 1 to 16. 1. By filing this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/plaintiffs, after feeling aggrieved, challenged the order being No. 30 dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Islampur, District Uttar Dinajpur in Title Suit No. 88/2021. 2. By the said order, the learned Trial Court refused to pass any order in an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs praying for direction for compliance of the temporary injunction order 2 passed by the Trial Court ex parte on 24.11.2021 contending therein that the defendants were creating and disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property despite of the temporary injunction. 3. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs are the owners of scheduled property by virtue of several deeds of conveyance. The specific share of ownership of the plaintiffs has been described in the plaint of the title suit. 4. It is further stated that one Hetun Nesa, Khidir Box, Mohon Box, Sakidan, Kaji Abdul Gafur were the permissive possessors of the suit property who later on surrendered their permissive possessory right upon the original owners and, thereafter, the original owners remained in possession of the suit property and have been cultivating therein. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. 5. Despite service of notice, they did not turn up in the title suit and ultimately temporary injunction was decided ex parte. The Trial Court has passed temporary injunction after considering the case of the petitioners restraining the 3 defendant nos. 7 to 16 from disturbing the plaintiffs’ possession of the suit property till disposal of the suit, subject to condition that plaintiffs shall not change the nature and character of the same till disposal of the title suit. 6. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the Trial Court has wrongly and without considering the facts, whimsically rejected the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as such impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all defendants disputes the allegation made by the plaintiffs and submits that they are not disturbing any peaceful possession of the plaintiffs rather they have filed an application for vacating of the temporary injunction, which was passed ex parte by the Trial Court on pleading several grounds. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs contending therein that there is one application under Section 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for vacating the temporary injunction passed ex 4 parte is pending. Therefore, this revisional application is liable to be rejected. 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsels for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, this Court finds there is a temporary injunction of the suit property although it was passed ex parte. Even then the parties should maintain the interim order in letter and spirit. An application for vacating the temporary injunction has already been filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time, another application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed by the petitioners seeking for compliance of such temporary injunction. 9. Trial court should have decided both the petitions together for proper and just decision. Therefore, rejection of application filed by the plaintiffs seems inappropriate when a temporary injunction exists in favour the plaintiffs. 10. Therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the Trial Court to decide both the applications together after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties and decide the same. If , written 5 objection to the applications, has not already been filed, then opportunity must be given to the parties to file objection thereto. 11. With the above observations, the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the Trial Court is hereby set aside. 12. During submissions, both the learned counsels for the parties have submitted and assured that they will maintain peace and, in the meantime, will maintain the temporary order of injunction. 13. In the above back drop, this Court requests the Trial Court to dispose of both the applications as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment. 14. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Trial Court. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claims of the parties while passing this order. Hence, the Trial Court will decide both the applications independently in accordance with law and without being influenced by any of the observations, whatsoever, made herein above. 6 16. With the above observation, the revisional application being CO No. 1492/2025 is disposed of. 17. Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of. 18. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 19. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)