Sl.22 24.08.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2790 of 2026 Shri Shyamal Mondal -versus- Smt. Amiya Bala Bhattacharjee & Ors. Mr. Kushal Chatterjee Mr. Oishik Chatterjee ..for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an appellant in Title Appeal No. 46 of 2026 who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 186 of 2011 and is directed against the order being no. 04 dated 1st August, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Barrackpore. By the order impugned the prayer for ad interim injunction in the title appeal stood rejected. Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the observation made by the learned judge of the appellate court while rejecting the prayer for ad interim injunction and submits that dismissal of a suit cannot be a ground to deny the prayer for ad interim injunction. In support of such contention he places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammadhanif Mohammadibrahim Patel and others vs. Pallaviben Rajendra Kumar Patel and others reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2526. 2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision held that the appellate court must independently consider the application for interim relief pending final decision of the appeal on its own merit and the established legal principles and it should not just look into the final outcome of the suit. There is no quarrel to the aforesaid proposition of law. However, the said decision cannot come to aid of the petitioner for the reasons as indicated hereinafter. The petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No. 186 of 2011 praying for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. The opposite parties herein filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction being Title Suit No. 104 of 2011. Both the suit were heard analogously and by a common judgement dated 30th June, 2026 the suit filed by the petitioner being Title Suit No. 186 of 2011 stood dismissed and the suit filed by the opposite party being Title Suit No. 104 of 2011 was decreed. The learned trial judge declared that the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 104 of 2011 i.e. the opposite parties herein are the absolute owners of the suit land. It was further declared that the mutation certificate and the building sanctioned plan in respect of the suit land in the name of the petitioner are baseless and bad in law. The learned trial judge passed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from forceful entry into the suit land. The petitioner preferred two appeals 3 against the aforesaid judgement and decree being Title Appeal No. 46 of 2026 and Title Appeal No. 47 of 2026. In an appeal arising out of the decree dismissing the suit of the petitioners Title Appeal No. 46 of 2026 has been filed and in such an appeal the petitioner has preferred an application for injunction and moved the ad interim prayer of injunction. The learned trial judge rejected the prayer for ad interim injunction and directed the petitioner to serve copy of the application upon the opposite parties and 23rd September, 2026 has been fixed for hearing of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since a decree for permanent injunction is staring at the face of the petitioner herein, any ad interim order of injunction protecting the possession of the petitioner would amount to negating the decree for permanent injunction at the ad interim stage without affording any opportunity of hearing to the opposite parties. To the mind of this Court, the learned judge of the appellate court was right in not passing any ad interim order without hearing the other side. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. At this stage, Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that liberty be given to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the learned judge of the appellate court. 4 C.O. 2790 of 2026 stands disposed of without interfering with the order impugned but by giving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the learned judge of the appellate court. If such an application is filed, the learned judge of the appellate court shall consider the same in accordance with law. The learned judge of the appellate court is requested to take up the hearing of the injunction application on the next date if such an application is otherwise ready for hearing and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)