AD – 51 Ct No.16 17.02.2026 (SSS) FMA 187 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 Babar Ali and Ors. Vs. Abul Noor Basar and Ors. Mr. Piyus Chaturbedi, Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty, Mr. Narendra Nath Malakar …..For the appellants. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the refusal of temporary injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants, primarily challenging a hibanama in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. 2. Apparently, in the plaint, the plaintiff/appellants have pleaded that the Schedule ‘kha’ property was transferred to one Kasimuddin Sk. in the year 1970 by hibanama and the defendants, being the legal heirs of Hasimuddin Sk., have no title over the same. The learned Trial Judge observed that, as pointed out by the learned advocate for the defendants, there was a decree on solenama in the year 1982 in respect of the self-same suit property where both parties put their respective signatures on the said solenama and the same being subsequent to the hibanama, the existence of oral hiba is questionable at this stage. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants seek to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to renew their prayer for injunction upon amending the plaint, insofar as the actual year of execution of the hibanama was 1990 and not 1970. 4. Be that as it may, on the prayer of the appellants, FMA 187 of 2026 is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. 6. It is made clear that in the event the appellants succeed in amending the plaint by incorporating appropriate date of the hibanama, nothing in this order or the impugned order shall preclude the appellants from renewing their prayer for injunction. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) 2