Calcutta High Court upholds status quo over Kolkata property amid prima facie questions about alleged fictitious plot and land-area expansion

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of premises 86B and 86C, Canal Circular Road, purchased in 1985.

On 3 August 2026, the trial court granted an ad interim status quo order concerning the nature, character and possession of the suit property; the order was subsequently extended.

1. Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court’s ex parte ad interim status quo order, having regard to the limited scope of an appeal against such an order and the materials before the trial court.

2. Whether the plaintiffs’ pleadings and supporting materials disclosed a sufficient prima facie case and justified maintaining the interim order pending determination of the injunction application.

Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure governs temporary injunctions, including the requirement under Rule 3 to record reasons when granting an injunction without notice; interim relief ordinarily requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and risk of irreparable injury.

Under Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., an appellate court should not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court where the order represents a reasonably possible view.

Applying the restricted appellate scope, the Court assessed the case on the materials that had been before the trial judge.

The discrepancy between the area for which the building plan was sanctioned and the larger area subsequently declared supported, at the interim stage, the plaintiffs’ allegation of irregularity and raised triable issues.

It directed the trial court to hear the parties after exchange of pleadings and to dispose of the injunction application expeditiously, preferably within three months of communication of the judgment.