D/L- 5 05/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2298 of 2026 M/s. Shree Shyam Infra Developers & Ors. Vs. Mukta Chandra Sipui Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Swarnava Ray ….for the petitioners Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri Mr. Debraj Dutta ….for the opposite party Though this matter is appearing under the heading “To Be Mentioned” but with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties the main civil revisional application is taken up for final hearing by treating the same as on the day‟s list. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the judgment and order dated July 3, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Barasat, District-North 24-Parganas in Miscellaneous Appeal No.169 of 2025 affirming the order dated November 24, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 2nd Court at Barasat in Title Suit No.1260 of 2025. By the order dated November 24, 2025, the learned trial judge passed an ad interim order of injunction directing both the parties not to change the nature, character and possession of the suit property on date till the next date. 2 Being aggrieved by the ad interim order of injunction the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court, by the judgment and order dated July 3, 2026, affirmed the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned trial judge. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned judge of the Appellate Court as well as the trial judge without considering that the instant suit which is, simpliciter a suit for injunction, is not maintainable in its present form. In support of such contention he places relinance upon a decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., reported at (2008) 4 SCC 594. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that there is already a registered development agreement in respect of a larger chunk of the property and the subject matter of the instant suit forms only a part of that larger property. He further submits that the opposite party has already entered into a registered development agreement with the petitioner in respect of „B‟ schedule property. He thus submits that such aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned judge of the trial court as well as Appellate Court. He further submits that the petitioners have commenced the construction work by taking preliminary steps in such construction and have invested a substantial sum of money in the property which is the subject matter of the instant suit. He submits that 3 it is now well-settled that in a case where a party has invested a substantial amount, such amount has to be secured by the other side for obtaining an order of injunction. In support of such contention he places reliance upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of ECE Industries Limited (2) vs. S.P. Real Estate Developers Private Limited and Anr., reported at (2009) 12 SCC 776. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the learned judge of the trial judge as well as the Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that before granting an order of injunction the Court has to first consider whether the suit is maintainable in law. He submits that without considering such aspect the judge of the learned trial court as well as the Appellate Court passed an ad interim order of injunction. With regard to the tests which are to be considered for the purpose of passing an order of injunction, Mr. Mukherjee placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Kumar & Anr. vs. Prahlad Singh & Ors., reported at (1992) 1 SCC 719 and Purna Chandra Das vs. Warren Industrial Ltd. & Anr., reported at 95 CWN 1022. Per contra, Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that development agreement has not been entered into by and between the parties in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the instant suit. He submits that considering the urgency 4 involved in this matter the learned trial judge passed an ad interim order of injunction after considering the well- settled principles laid down for the purpose of passing an ad interim order of injunction. He submits that the judgments relied upon by Mr. Mukherjee do not have any manner of application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that several issues are required to be considered for the purpose of deciding as to whether the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned trial judge and affirmed by the Appellate Court should be made absolute or not. On a query of the Court, Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, in his usual fairness, submits that some of the points which have been raised by him in this civil revisional application has not been taken in the written objection to the injunction application which has already been filed by the petitioner before the learned trial judge. He prays that a liberty be granted to the petitioner to incorporate the points which have been inadvertently left out while drafting the written objection to the injunction application. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners in course of his argument submits that certain observations have been made by the learned trial 5 judge as well as the Appellate Court while passing an ad interim order of injunction, which should be set aside. It has been uniformly submitted by the learned advocates for the respective parties that August 27, 2026 is the date fixed before the learned trial judge. It is not in dispute that the written objection to the injunction application has already been filed by the petitioner. However, taking note of the fact that the some of the points have been left out in the written objection, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit to the written objection against the injunction application on or before August 14, 2026. Opposite party will be at liberty to file a comprehensive rejoinder to the written objection and the supplementary affidavit, if filed by the petitioner on before the date mentioned hereinbefore. Let such rejoinder be filed on or before August 24, 2026. It is, however, made clear that the advance copy of the supplementary affidavit and the comprehensive rejoinder shall be served to the respective parties on before the date mentioned hereinbefore. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 2nd Court at Barasat is requested to take up the hearing of the injunction application on the next date fixed i.e. on August 27, 2026 and make an endeavour to dispose of the injunction application as expeditiously as possible but preferably on or before the end of the month of September, 6 2026 without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is, however, made clear that in case the hearing of the injunction application cannot be concluded on August 27, 2026, the learned trial judge shall fix short dates of hearing of the injunction application keeping in mind the date fixed by this Court for disposal of the injunction application. It is well-settled that the considerations at the time of passing an ad interim order of injunction is different from that at the time of temporary injunction. The learned trial judge shall decide the application for temporary injunction being uninfluenced by the observations made by the learned trial judge in the ad interim order of injunction dated November 24, 2025 as well as those made by the learned judge of the Appellate court in the order dated July 3, 2026 as well as this Court in this order. With the above observations, CO 2298 of 2026 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)