Court No. 6 (265719) 21.09.2026 (AD 26) (S. Banerjee) CO 3270 of 2026 Das Organochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Subrata Ghosh & Ors. Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Advocate Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Soumyadeb Sinha Ms. Abhismita Goswami Ms. Suranjana Chatterjee …for the petitioner Mr. Aloke Chatterjee Mr. Arghya Mullick Mr. Shivam Adhikary …for the opposite-party no. 1 On the prayer of Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner, leave is granted to the learned advocate-on-record of the petitioner to amend the cause-title of the civil revision application, here and now. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no. 1 and is directed against a judgment and order dated August 21, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court at Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 274 of 2024. The order dated July 15, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 775 of 2023 allowing the application 2 under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner, was challenged by the opposite-party no. 1 by preferring the Misc. Appeal No. 274 of 2024. The said misc appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court at Alipore by a judgment and order dated August 21, 2026 thereby restoring the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned trial judge by an order dated June 7, 2023. The opposite-party no. 1 filed a suit for declaration that the opposite-party no. 1 is the co- owner of A and B schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his men and agents from making any construction in the C schedule property encroaching upon the vacant land in A and B schedule property. The learned trial judge, by an order dated June 7, 2023, passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner from encroaching upon the A and B schedule property for a limited period. Petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code alleging that material facts were suppressed by the plaintiff/opposite-party in the plaint and the injunction application and for such reason the ad interim order of injunction should be vacated. 3 The learned trial judge by an order dated July 5, 2026 allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and the learned Judge of the appellate court allowed the appeal thereby restoring the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned trial judge. Being aggrieved the defendant no. 1 has approached this Court. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite-party no. 1 in the plaint as well as in the injunction application has admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the C schedule property. He submits that the opposite- party no. 1 has suppressed the fact that the petitioner has become absolute owner of A, B and C schedule property by virtue of a deed of conveyance executed sometime in the year 1963 by the predecessor-in- interest of the opposite-party no. 1 along with other co-sharers. He further submits that when the learned trial judge after being satisfied with the fact that the ad interim order of injunction could not have been passed if such facts were not suppressed, allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned Judge of the appellate court ought not to have reversed the said order only on the ground that the title of the petitioner by virtue of the said deed is a matter of evidence. He, therefore, 4 submits that the order passed by the learned Judge of the appellate court suffers from perversity and for such reason the same is liable to be set aside. Per contra the learned advocate appearing for the opposite-parties submits that the opposite-parties have admitted that the petitioner is the owner of only C schedule property. He further submits that the petitioner in the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code claimed that the petitioner is a co-sharer in respect of Schedule A and B property and such facts were not within the knowledge of the opposite-party no. 1 and for such reason it cannot be said that the opposite-party no. 1 suppressed material facts at the time of passing of the ad interim order of injunction. With regard to the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India the learned advocate appearing for the opposite-party no. 1 places reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Essen Deinki –Vs.- Rajiv Kumar, reported in (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 400. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. After going through the plaint and the injunction application, this Court finds that the opposite-party has admitted that the defendant no. 5 1/petitioner is the owner of the property mentioned in C schedule of the plaint. However, in the pleadings the opposite-party no. 1 has not disclosed the source of his knowledge about the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the C schedule property. After going through the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code this Court finds that the petitioner has specifically stated about the devolution of title upon the petitioner by virtue of the registered deed of conveyance. In paragraph 5 of the said application the petitioner has specifically stated that the plaintiff/opposite-party no. 1 has failed to annex the title deed of the defendant no. 1/petitioner intentionally to suppress the real facts before the Court. The learned trial judge noted the case made out by the opposite-party no. 1 in details in the order dated July 15, 2025 as well as the claim made by the petitioner that he became owner by virtue of purchase of the suit property. The learned trial judge specifically noted that Mohini Mohan, i.e., the direct predecessor of the plaintiff was a party to the deed of sale and the fact that Asutosh, had another son, namely, Nalini Mohan was evident from RS Record of Rights which fact was also suppressed by the plaintiff/opposite-party. 6 After being satisfied with the fact that the plaintiff/opposite-party no. 1 suppressed material facts, the learned trial judge vacated the ad interim order of injunction which was passed on June 7, 2023. However, the learned judge of the appellate court after recording that the learned trial judge has noted that there was suppression of material fact made by the plaintiff/opposite-party allowed the misc. appeal thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned trial judge only on the ground that whether there was sale or whether the plaintiff inherited the suit property, is a matter of evidence. As observed hereinbefore that in the plaint and in the injunction application the plaintiff/opposite- party has admitted that the defendant/petitioner is the owner of a portion of the suit property but has not disclosed the manner as to how the defendant no. 1 became the owner. The learned trial judge specifically recorded the suppression made by the opposite-party no. 1in the injunction application. To the mind of this Court, the suppressions as noted by the learned trial judge are suppressions of material facts relevant for consideration at the time of passing an order of injunction. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial judge was right in vacating the ad interim order of injunction. 7 It now well-settled that for the purpose of reversing an order, the appellate authority has to come within the close quarters of the reason assigned by the learned trial judge and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a different conclusion. This Court finds that the learned judge of the appellate court without considering the reasons assigned by the learned trial judge reversed the order passed by the learned trial judge only on the ground that the issue of title is a matter of evidence. It is now well-settled that there is a distinction between “prima facie case” and “prima facie title”. While deciding an application for injunction, the Court has to consider the prima facie case and not the prima facie title which has to be proved by way of adducing evidence at the time of trial. The learned judge of the appellate court confused itself between the expressions „prima facie case‟ and „prima facie title‟ while reversing the order passed by the learned trial judge. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Essen Deinki (supra) held that the power of superintendence under Article 227 can be used to keep the subordinate Courts or tribunals within the bounds of their authority. 8 To the mind of this Court, the learned judge of the appellate court failed to perform its duty as an appellate court while deciding the appeal and for such reason this court is inclined to interfere with the order of the learned judge of the appellate court. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated August 21, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 10th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas is set aside. The order passed by the learned trial judge dated July 15, 2024 stands restored. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is right in submitting that even if the vacating application is allowed, the injunction application has to be decided on its merit. The petitioner is directed to file the written objection to the injunction application within three weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order, if not already filed. The learned trial judge is requested to dispose of the temporary injunction application as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Before parting, it is made clear that the observations made hereinbefore are only for the 9 purpose of supporting the ultimate conclusion in this order and the learned trial judge shall be free to decide the injunction application being uninfluenced by the aforesaid observations. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)