ASSIGNED MATTER 18.09.2026 In the High Court at Calcutta Ct. No.446 Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Sl. No.12 akd C. O. 827 of 2025 [Manglahat Construction & Builders Private Limited -Vs- Padmanava Dhal & Ors.] Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta Ms. Moumita Dhar … … for the petitioner 1. Affidavit-of-service showing service of notice upon the opposite parties, in terms of the order dated 11th August, 2026, filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. However, despite service, nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. The present revisional application has been filed challenging the legality and/or propriety of the order dated 18th November, 2024, passed on an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”), praying for an appropriate direction upon the police authorities to render assistance for implementation of the ex parte ad-interim order of injunction dated 4th October, 2023, passed on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. By the impugned order, the Officer-in-Charge of Howrah Police Station was directed to render police assistance for implementation of the aforesaid ad- interim order of injunction. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that, in the present case, the plaintiff has, with a particular design, framed the suit in such a manner as to project himself as a licensee in respect of the suit property under the proforma defendants. It is submitted that two of the persons 2 impleaded as defendants in the suit admittedly have no right, title or interest in respect of the suit property. Nevertheless, the plaint specifically alleges that the said defendants were creating disturbance in the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On such premise, the plaintiff prayed for a decree of declaration that the said two defendants had no right to evict him from the suit property. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the said defendants from causing any disturbance to his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 4. He submits that the said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 1455 of 2023. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, praying for an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the said two defendants from taking any step or further step for evicting the plaintiff from the godown in his possession. It is contended that the said application for injunction was never served upon the proforma defendants, who are stated to be the true owners of the suit property. According to him, by suppressing these material facts, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte order of injunction against the said two defendants. 5. Mr. Gupta further submits that the plaintiff is not in possession of any godown or shop room forming part of the suit property. He submits that, even after obtaining the order of injunction, and purportedly in compliance with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rules 3(a) and (b) of the CPC, notices were served only upon the said two defendants and not upon the proforma defendants, who are stated to be the true owners of the suit property. It is further submitted that, 3 thereafter, with a view to implementing and/or enforcing the said interim order of injunction with police assistance, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC. By the impugned order, the said application was allowed and the jurisdictional police were directed to render assistance for implementation of the order of injunction. According to Mr. Gupta, the entire exercise was undertaken with the ulterior object of securing possession of the suit property by taking advantage of the ex parte ad-interim order of injunction. 6. He submits that immediately upon coming to know of the aforesaid order and the alleged modus operandi of the plaintiff to secure possession of the suit property, the petitioner took steps to contest the application for injunction and to file his written objection thereto. It is, however, submitted that, before the learned court below can finally adjudicate the said application for injunction, if the ex parte ad-interim order is implemented and the plaintiff is permitted to obtain possession of any part of the suit property, the petitioner would suffer serious prejudice. 7. According to him, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order impugned in the present revisional application ought to be set aside and the learned court below be directed to consider the application for injunction as well as the application seeking police assistance expeditiously, upon taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record by the petitioner in its written objection. 8. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials on record. 4 9. As noted hereinbefore, despite repeated opportunities being afforded to the opposite party to appear and contest the present revisional application, the opposite party has chosen not to appear. In the aforesaid conspectus, having regard to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and upon perusal of the materials on record, I am of the view that the application for injunction as well as the application seeking police assistance ought to be considered afresh, upon taking into account all the relevant facts and the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner, who is a proforma defendant in the suit and claims to be the true owner of the suit property. 10. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Gupta that, if the ex parte ad-interim order of injunction is implemented with the assistance of the jurisdictional police before the issues raised by the two owners of the suit property are considered, the said owners would be seriously prejudiced. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 18th November, 2025 is set aside. The present revisional application is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction upon the learned court below to dispose of the application for injunction and all applications filed in connection therewith, including the application seeking police assistance, after affording all the defendants an opportunity to file their respective written objections and upon duly considering the issues raised by the defendants, including the proforma defendants and the petitioner herein, in their respective written objections. The learned court below shall ensure that the aforesaid applications are disposed of as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 5 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, CO 827 of 2025 is disposed of. 13. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the petitioner on usual undertaking. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)