D/L. 4. September 21, 2026. MNS. FMAT No. 29 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 + CAN 2 of 2026 Pramod Kr. Jaiswal and another Vs. Sri Pawan Kedia and others Mr. Javed K. Sanwarwala, Mr. Shariq A. Sanwarwala, Ms. Sadaf Aafrin, Advs. … for the appellants. Mr. Anshunath Chakraborty, Adv. …for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Re: CAN 1 of 2026 (condonation) 1. The affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record. 2. The present application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there were some bona fide laches on the part of the Advocate’s clerk acting for the appellants in the Trial Court inasmuch as, although the certified copy of the impugned order was made ready almost immediately after applying for the same, the same could not be tracked. 4. Moreover, it is submitted that the appellants were seriously ill; one suffering due to cardiac arrest and other renal cancer. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 4 points out that from the 2 medical certificates annexed to the application, it transpires that one of the appellants was hospitalized for a few days in October, 2025; whereas the other for a few days in November, 2025, but the appeal has been filed much later. 6. Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings in the application and the connected documents, we find that the plea taken by the appellants that the nature of the ailments of the appellants were such that those kept them bedridden for quite a long period. 7. Moreover, the ground taken as to the Clerk of the learned Advocate for the defendants/appellants in the Trial Court losing track of the certified copy is otherwise credible. 8. Also, we do not find any mala fides on the part of the appellants in delaying the filing of the appeal. 9. Thus, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find sufficient explanation for the delay having been furnished. 10. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2026 is allowed, thereby condoning the delay in preferring FMAT No. 29 of 2026. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. Upon perusing the records and considering the submissions made by the appellants, the appeal is admitted to be heard on the grounds taken in the memorandum of the appeal. 3 13. In view of the short question involved, we take up the appeal itself for hearing along with the connected application. 14. The plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 4 are represented through counsel. 15. On the prayer of learned counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondent nos. 1 to 4, leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the said respondents to file Vakalatnama on their behalf in the Department during the course of the day. 16. In view of no relief having been sought against the proforma respondent nos. 5 to 7, service of notice of the appeal on the said proforma respondents is dispensed with. 17. In a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 4, the said respondents made an application for temporary and ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, including the present appellants, from changing the nature and character of the suit property as well as from making any illegal construction thereon, causing damage to the suit building. 18. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge granted a blanket order of status quo against both parties regarding possession, nature and character of the suit property till disposal of the suit. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant nos. 2 and 3/appellants argues that in paragraph no. 11 of the written objection to the injunction application, it was 4 categorically pointed out that the said defendants/appellants were carrying on carpentry work to fix damaged wooden shelves in the suit shop room, and not any brick work or construction of a partition wall as alleged by the plaintiffs/respondents. 20. It is submitted that in view of the upcoming occasion of Diwali, the appellants seek to whitewash and do some painting works on the walls of the suit shop room as well as to carry out certain carpentry works to fix the damaged wooden shelves inside the shop room. 21. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 4 opposes such prayers of the appellants. 22. However, upon perusing the impugned order, we find that the learned Trial Judge granted relief more than sought for by the plaintiffs/respondents, thereby partially affecting the plaintiffs themselves as well. 23. Whereas injunction was sought by the plaintiffs/respondents against the defendants/appellants, by the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has granted status quo restraining both the parties from disturbing the possession in respect of the suit property till disposal of the suit, without any clause as to the same being subject to due process of law, thereby virtually preventing the plaintiffs from pursuing the eviction suit itself. 24. That apart, both sides have been directed to maintain status quo also regarding possession, although the plaintiffs had not made any such prayer but sought 5 injunction regarding change of nature and character and illegal construction simpliciter. 25. Moreover, an order of status quo without recording the exact status of the property might unnecessarily create future complications. 26. Upon a perusal of the written objection filed by the appellants in the Trial Court, we find the leave sought by the appellants to be innocuous and as such, the impugned order, in our view, ought to be modified to the extent that the injunction sought for by the plaintiffs is to be granted with a minor clarification regarding painting work and minor carpentry works. 27. Hence, FMAT No. 29 of 2026 is partially allowed on contest against the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 4 and ex parte against the proforma respondent nos. 5 to 7, thereby modifying the impugned order, bearing Order No. 10 dated September 18, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Twelfth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 2206 of 2023, by restraining the defendants, including the appellants and the proforma respondents, from making any illegal construction and/or changing the nature and character of the suit property in any manner till disposal of the suit. 28. It is, however, clarified that the above injunction shall not prevent the appellants from undertaking internal painting work and/or whitewash of the walls of the suit shop room as well as carrying on carpentry work to fix 6 damaged wooden shelves in the suit shop room, without changing the nature and character thereof. 29. Consequentially, CAN 2 of 2026 is also disposed of. 30. There will be no order as to costs. (Sandip Kumar De, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)