D/L- 41 31/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2895 of 2026 Abdul Rohit Mondal & Ors. Vs. Purna Mondal & Ors. Ms. Shabana Hasin Mr. Mobaidur Hossain ….for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against a judgment and order dated January 30, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Tehatta, Nadia in Misc. Appeal No.1 of 2024 affirming an order dated April 1, 2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Tehatta, Nadia in Title Suit No.88 of 2015. By the order dated April 1, 2021, the learned trial judge passed an order of temporary injunction in favour of the opposite parties restraining the petitioners from causing any hindrance to the peaceful possession of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by such order the petitioners preferred a Misc. Appeal No.8 of 2021, which stood dismissed by the order dated January 30, 2026. The opposite parties herein filed a Title Suit No.88 of 2015 praying for permanent injunction. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the suit property previously belonged to Muccharuddin Mollah who constructed his dwelling house over the suit property and after his death the suit property was inherited by his son Jarman Mollah. It has been further stated in the plaint 2 that there is a small burial ground in the suit property which was used exclusively by the family members of Muccharuddin Mollah and Jarman Mollah and not by any other person. The said Jarman Mollah transfered the suit property to the opposite parties and after getting possession of the suit property the opposite parties recorded their names in the L.R. Record of Rights in respect of the suit property. It is further stated in the plaint that there is burial ground in the adjacent western side of the suit property which is used by the general public. The opposite parties further alleged that the petitioners prepared some forged records in respect of the suit property and is claiming the same as a public burial ground and is trying to make pucca boundary wall around the suit property. The case of the petitioner is that the suit property never belonged to Muccharuddin Mollah or Jarman Mollah and they had no authority to transfer the same. The petitioners claimed that the suit property is a burial ground and it is being used as such from time immemorial by a particular community of the village. The petitioners further claimed that as per the permission obtained from the Director, Minorities Development and Welfare Directorate, Government of West Bengal the petitioners were trying to construct a boundary wall. The learned trial judge after considering the materials on record passed an order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from causing any hindrance to 3 the peaceful possession of the opposite parties in respect of the suit property. The learned trial judge specifically recorded that the opposite parties filed original certified copy of the sale deed, tax receipts and the original L.R. Record of Rights dated February 4, 2015 in respect of the suit property with classification of the suit plot as “avash” while the petitioners filed an information slip of the L.R. Record of Rights pertaining to the suit plots. After considering the documents produced by the respective parties the learned trial judge returned a prima facie finding that the plaintiffs have title and are in possession in respect of the suit property. The learned judge of the appellate court rightly noted that the dispute as to whether the suit property is a public burial ground or is the personal property of the opposite parties has to be decided at the time of trial. After going through the pleadings of the respective parties this Court is of the considered view that the opposite parties have made out a prima facie case to go for trial. Since the petitioners were trying to construct a boundary wall, the balance of convenience and inconvenience lies in favour of the opposite parties and if the petitioners succeed in constructing a boundary wall surrounding the suit property the opposite parties will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Thus, the three legal tests for passing an order of injunction has been satisfied in the case on hand and the 4 learned judges of the trial court as well as appellate court was right in passing an order of temporary injunction. Considering the fact that the suit is pending from the year 2015, CO 2895 of 2026 stands disposed of without interfering with the order impugned and by requesting the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Tehatta, Nadia to make an endeavour to dispose of Title Suit No.88 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of 9 months from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. 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.)