AD-15 Ct No.16 23.09.2026 TN FMA 975 of 2026 IA No: CAN 1 of 2026 Associated Steel and Engineering Works and another Vs. KB Syndicate and others Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee, Mr. Prasenjit Debnath, Mr. A. Sengupta ....for the appellants Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Anirban Saha Roy, Mr. Sounak Mondal …..for the respondents [ 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the refusal of a prayer for injunction in respect of a proceeding initiated under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present appellants. 2. However, although under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code, the final adjudication under Rules 98 or 100 of Order XXI has the same force and is subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise “as if it were a decree”, nonetheless, a proceeding under the said provisions does not acquire the character of a suit per se. 3. Order XLIII of the Code provides for an appeal in respect of orders passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code which, in turn, relate to orders passed in a “suit”. 2 4. Hence, the order impugned in the present appeal is not an appealable one within the purview of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Accordingly, FMA 975 of 2026 is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the appellants to prefer an appropriate challenge against the impugned order on the self-same grounds as taken in the present appeal. 6. CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of accordingly. 7. Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants to take back the certified copy of the impugned order upon furnishing a photocopy thereof for the records. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Sandip Kumar De, J.)