AKARON ROY vs MRIDULA BACHAR AND ORS

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-
The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

CO 1637 of 2025
With
IA NO: CAN 1 of 2025

Akaron Roy
Vs.
Mridula Bachar & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Das Poddar
Ms. Mandira Barman.
For the Opposite party : Mr. Susenjit Banik
nos. 1 to 3 Mr. Sanjib Seth

Delivered On : 12.11.2026

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.:
1. The present application under article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner / appellant / defendant being
th
dissatisfied by the judgment dated the 7 day of March 2025 passed in
the miscellaneous appeal being M iscellaneous A ppeal No. 170 of 2024 by
the learned District Judge Howrah, whereby the said miscellaneous
appeal has been dismissed as the impugned order therein, that is the
order dated 20. 09. 2024 passed by the learned C ivil Judge ( Senior

2

rd
Division ) 3 Court Howrah in Title Suit No. 170 of 2023, has been found
to be justified.
2. The factual matrix of the lis is that the respondents being the plaintiffs
filed a title suit seeking partition of the suit property, as mentioned in the
' C ' schedule of the plaint. According to the respondents / plaintiffs the
property erstwhile belonged to one Annada Prasad Dhali and on the
death of the said Annada Prasad Dhali the property devolved upon his
four legal heirs in equal proportion. Among the said four legal heirs
Brajabala was one of them. The respondents being the legal heirs of the
said Brajabala have become co - sharers in respect of the suit property. As
such the respondents preferred the suit seeking declaration of
cancellation of two deeds along with partition and injunction.
3. An application under order XXXIX R ule 1 and 2 of the C ode of C ivil
P rocedure, seeking ad interim injunction has been filed on behalf of the
plaintiff. The learned trial judge on 04.04 2023 passed ad interim order of
injunction directing both parties namely the plaintiffs and the defendants
No.1 and 2 to maintain status quo in respect of the nature, character and
possession in respect of the suit property 'mentioned in schedule ' C’.
O XXXIX
4. Thereafter written objection against the application under rder
R ules 1 and 2 read with S ection 1 51 of the C ode of C ivil P rocedure has
been filed on behalf of the defendants No. 1 and 2 . Through the said
written objection the said defendants placed in their defence that
Gunadhar being the sole legal heir of Annada Prasad Dhali became the

3

absolute owner in respect of the suit property left behind by the said
Annada Prasad Dhali. It is also the contention of the said objectors /
defendants that the name of Gunadhar was recorded in the record of
rights. Relying upon the aforementioned contentions the
objectors/defendants prayed for rejection of the application for
injunction filed by the plaintiffs.

5. After hearing the learned counsels representing the petitioners/plaintiffs
and the opposite parties/defendants the learned trial court passed an
order of injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect
of the nature, character and possession of the suit property.
6. Being dissatisfied by the order of temporary injunction passed by the
learned trial judge, the defendants preferred the said miscellaneous
appeal being M iscellaneous A ppeal No. 170 of 2024, wherein the learned
District Judge Howrah a fter hearing the learned counsels representing
the appellants/defendants and the respondents/plaintiffs dismissed the
miscellaneous appeal finding the order of temporary injunction passed
by the Ld. trial judge to be not unjustified. This order/judgment passed
th
by the learned District Judge Howrah dated 7 of March 2025 is the
impugned order which has been assailed by the petitioners herein.
7. The Ld. Counsel representing the petitioner during his exhaustive
submission has agitated several issues which are as follows:
i. That the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. While
projecting this issue the Ld. Counsel has placed prayer (a) of the

4

plaint and submitted that through the said prayer the plaintiffs
have sought for a decree for declaration that the registered deeds
of conveyance as described in item nos. I and II in the ‘D’
schedule of the plaint are illegal , void, fraudulent , invalid,
vague, baseless and not binding upon the plaintiffs as well as
upon the defendants No. 9 to 31 .

ii. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs have sought
for cancellation of the deed whereby the seller, from whom the
petitioner /defendant has purchased the self-same quantity of
property that is from the legal heirs of Gunadhar Dhali in the
year 2015 and the plaintiffs have also sought for cancellation of
the deed by which this petitioner defendant has purchased the
property being 8 decimals of land in the year 2023.
iii. He has submitted that as per the Limitation Act challenge to a
deed has to be made within 3 years from the execution and
registration of the said deed and in the present case the suit has
been filed seeking cancellation of a deed of the year 2023, while
the earlier deed of the vendor of the petitioner/ defendant has
been of the year 2015, so after about 8 years the opposite parties
plaintiffs have sought for cancellation of a deed, which is beyond
the permissible limit as per the Limiation Act. He has further
submitted that in the deed of 2015 the husband of the
respondent No. 1/plaintiff No.1 and the father of the

5

respondents No.2 and 3/ plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 namely Ajit
Bachar had signed on the said deed as a witness to the said
deed, so the husband/father of the respondents/plaintiffs being
a witness to the said deed of the year 2015, the
respondents/plaintiffs cannot raise the issue of cancellation of
the deed after 8 years of execution and registration of the said
deed as they were well aware of the said deed as their
predecessor had been a witness to the said deed. So the prayer
for cancellation of the said deed of the year 2015 is not at all
tenable in the eye of law, being barred by the law of limitation
and consequently the said deed of the year 2023 through which
the petitioner defendant purchased the property banking upon
the deed of the year 2015 cannot be sought to be void being
barred by limitation.
iv. He has further submitted that the suit is barred under Section
34 of the Specific Relief Act and also is hit by the provision of
Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the
plaintiffs have not sought for consequential reliefs. He has further
submitted that the plaintiffs are barred under the principles of
estopple, waiver and acquiscence.
v. The Ld. Counsel has reiterated that the plaintiffs were well aware
of the transfer of interest taking place during the year 2015 and
at such belated stage that is after 8 years, cannot pray for

6

cancellation of the deed. He has further submitted that a club
and other persons have been incorporated as parties to the suit
being a proceeding seeking partition who are not co-sharers, on
the contrary they are third parties outsiders.
vi. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the predecessor in
interest of his vendor’s vendor namely Anondomohan Dhali was
the owner of 23 decimals of land out of which 8 decimals of land
was purchased by Biren Hati , the person from whom the
petitioners purchased, whereas out of the 15 decimals of property
left over a small portion of the said property had been acquired
by the State to construct road, while the remaining major
portion has not vested in favour of the State which is lying with
the plaintiffs, but in respect of the said property lying in favour of
the plaintiffs have not been included in the hotchpotch of the
suit, as such the suit is a faulty one having been impleaded
unnecessary parties and lacking some property to be impleaded
within the schedule which is to be partitioned.
vii. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the suit which has
given rise to the present revisional application is nothing but a
collusive one between the plaintiffs and the club. He has further
submitted that apart from Gunadhar Dhali no other person had
the right over the suit property as because the said
Annadaprasad Dhali has expired during the year 1955 that is

7

prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
whereby the other legal heirs of Annada Prasad Dhali that is his
three daughters did not acquire any right or interest over the
property left by Annada Prasad Dhali apart from his only son
namely Gunadhar Dhali.
viii. The Ld. Counsel has finally stressed upon the issue that
through the order of ad interim injunction dated 04.04.2023
and the order of temporary injunction dated 20.09.2024 the
Ld. Trial Court has only directed, both the parties that is the
plaintiffs and the defendants No. 1 and 2 that is the
petitioners, to maintain status quo in respect of the nature ,
character and possession of the schedule C mentioned suit
property which is a vague order having not mentioned any
details explicitly. He has also submitted that the Hon’ble
Apex Court has time and again opined that a vague order of
status quo which has been passed in the title suit is not to be
passed without giving any details about the status prevailing
on the date of passing of the order of status quo . In support of
his contention the Ld. Counsel has relied upon an authority
reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312 and stressed upon the point
that the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated in Paragraph-5 that
“ it is necessary to notice at this stage that in an original suit
of this nature , it was not appropriate for the additional District

8

Judge to pass an order directing the parties to maintain status
quo, without indicating what the status quo was. ..... ” . He
has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
reported at (2017) 3 SCC 702 .
ix. The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that as regards to the
properties mentioned in the B schedule of the plaint nothing
has been explained by the opposite parties and the B
schedule property has not been satisfied, as because out of
the remaining 15 decimals of land only a small portion of
land was acquired while the remaining portion was left over.
Ld. Counsel representing the petitioner further submitted
that the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the
order of injunction is a cryptic one and has not been dealt in
details as such it requires interference and so this present
civil revision is required to be allowed.
8. Per contra the Ld. Counsel representing the opposite parties
submitted that
i. In the Paragraph 10 of the revisional application the
petitioners have admitted the fact that Annada Prasad Dhali
died intestate sometime in the year 1955 leaving behind his
only son Gunadhar Dhali who acquired all the estate of Annada
Prasad Dhali, as because Saraju Dhali the wife of Annada
Prasad Dhali had predeceased him. He has further mentioned

9

that the daughters had no right of inheritance at that relevant
point of time and the Record of Rights under Sarenga Mouja
reveals that Annada Prasad was the owner in respect of the
property in Sarenga Mouja and after his death , Gunadhar
Dhali was the only raiyat in respect of the said property.
ii. He has further submitted in respect of his contention that the
Ld. Counsel representing the petitioners has not produced an
iota of evidence. He has further submitted that no specific date
of death has been mentioned by the petitioners either in the
written statement or in the written objection to the injunction
application.
iii. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that after discussion
the Trial Court has passed the order of status quo which has
been affirmed in the miscellaneous appeal by the Ld. District
Judge Howrah.
iv. The Ld. Counsel representing the opposite party has relied
upon two authorities one being reported at 1994 1 Calcutta
Law Times 58 and the other published in 2024 2 ICC 496
and has emphasized that the Ld. Trial Court while granting
the order of injunction has relied upon three issues which are
the basic issues that is prima facie case , balance of
convenience and irreparable loss and injury.

10

Banking upon the ingredients the Ld. Trial Court has passed the
order of status quo and has mentioned in the said order that the
status quo was in respect of nature, character and possession of
the Schedule C mentioned in the plaint which has been affirmed by
the Ld. District Judge in the miscellaneous appeal, as such the
impugned order is not required to be interfered with.

9. From the submission of the Ld. counsels representing the petitioner
/defendant and the opposite parties/ respondents/ plaintiffs, it
transpires that the petitioner defendant is agitating the fact that the
deeds which have been sought for to be declared as cancelled are
time-barred. It is also the contention of the learned counsel
representing the petitioner defendant that the suit in addition to
being time-barred is also liable to fail on the ground of joinder of
unnecessary parties. It has also been raised on behalf of the
petitioner that the order of status quo is a vague order.
10. The crux is as to whether at this stage of the proceeding a suit
can be decided finally as being time-barred or it is to be decided
finally as to whether the suit is to fail on the ground of joinder of
unnecessary parties.
11. The present petition has arisen because of order granting
temporary injunction in the nature of status quo in respect of the
nature, character and possession of the suit property. Order XXXIX
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down specifically as

11

regards to the cases in which temporary injunction may be granted
and Order XXXIX Rule 2 specifically lays down the circumstances
when injunction may be granted to restrain repetition or continuance
of breach.
12. At this stage the three points which are to be taken into
consideration are :-
(a) prima facie case,
(b) balance of convenience and inconvenience and
(c) irreparable loss and injury.
13. While granting injunction a court must also take into
consideration the conduct of the parties. At this stage no further issues
are required to be considered, as such the reason given in the impugned
judgment that there is no scope of holding mini trial at this stage is not
at all incorrect as per the view of this court.
14. As regards to status quo it has been mentioned that the order of
status quo is in respect of nature, character and possession of the suit
property, as such there is no vagueness as regards to the order of status
quo .
The authority published at (2006) 3 SCC 312 relied on behalf of the
petitioner applicant does not help the petitioner in this case as because
the orders passed by the learned trial court states that status quo is in
respect of the nature, character and possession of the suit property,

12

while the other authority published at ( 2017) 3 SCC 702 is also of no
help to the petitioner/ applicant as because in the said judgment the
Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue that judgment and decree
granting relief with respect to property other than described in the plaint
is unsustainable, whereas in the present lis it is not the case that the
suit has been finally decided and that too in respect of property which is
not mentioned in the schedule. As such both the judgments relied upon
by the applicant petitioner is not at all applicable in the present lis.
15. So from the aforementioned discussion this Court is of the view
th
that the impugned judgment dated the 7 day of March 2025 passed by
the learned District Judge, Howrah in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 170 of
2024, does not require interference.
16. Hence the present petition/application being CO 1637 of 2025
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails. Accordingly CAN
1 of 2025 is also disposed of .
17. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the
judgment and order placed on the official website of the Court.
18. Urgent Xerox certified photo copies of this judgment, if applied for,
be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)