Court No. 6 (265719) 27.08.2026 (AD 25) (S. Banerjee) CO 2848 of 2026 M/s. Glen Industries Limited Vs. Shibnath Maity & Ors. Mr. Subhashish Sengupta Mr. Bishajib Ghosh Mr. Ratul Kumar Das Mr. Abirup Mr. Amir Ali Mr. Joyjeev Medhi …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no. 1 and is directed against an order being no. 9 dated July 18, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 2nd Court at Uluberia in Title Suit No. 532 of 2025. By the order impugned the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendant no. 1/petitioner herein, stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant suit which is a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable and the plaintiff/opposite-party ought to have sought for declaration of title. He submits that since no declaration of title was sought for by the plaintiff in the instant suit, the plaint of the suit is liable to be 2 rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. In support of his contention that a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji – Vs.- Namboodiyil Vinodan reported at (2022) 20 SCC 310. In Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji (supra) the plaintiff therein claimed that the suit property belonged to him by virtue of a registered assignment deed executed by Kalariyullathil Paru and the defendant has no right over the suit property. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement and in the written statement it was the specific case made out by the defendant that the property to the extent of 52 ½ cents belonging to the defendant despite not being included in the assignment deed, is claimed by the plaintiff to be in his possession. It was the further claim of the defendant that the suit property never belonged to Kalariyullathil Paru and, therefore, no right could have been transferred in favour of the appellant/plaintiff by virtue of the assignment deed dated January 15, 1977. On such a factual background a question was framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether the 3 learned single Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title was not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the said decision in unequivocal terms held that where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession. It has been clearly held that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further proceeded to observe that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further clarified that such cases are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. In the case on hand the plaintiff/opposite-party no. 1 claims to be in possession by virtue of being a Bargadar. It has also been stated in the plaint that 4 his father was a Bargadar initially under Subala Bala Chattapadhyay and upon her demise under her son i.e., Hemendranath Chatterjee. After going through the plaint of the instant suit this Court finds that the plaintiff/opposite-party has not prayed for a declaration of his title but filed a suit for permanent injunction to protect his possession in respect of the property for the purpose of cultivating the same as Bargadar. Section 21(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act states that if any question as to whether a person is or is not a Bargadar arises in course of any suit, case, appeal or other proceeding before any civil or criminal court, the court shall refer it to the officer or the authority mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 18 for decision and such court shall dispose of the suit, case, appeal or other proceedings in accordance with the decision communicated to it by the officer or authority mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 18 to whom the question was referred. If in the instant suit such a question arises, the learned trial judge shall proceed in accordance with law. At the stage of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, only the averments 5 made in the plaint are to be considered. The defence case cannot be looked into at this stage. However, this Court finds that the learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the revisional application stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)