The Court Set Aside the Injunction Order in Terms of the Parties’ Settlement.

The petitioners acquired the property at 43A, Hazra Road, Kolkata, by a deed of conveyance dated 17 November 2006.

Reliable Estate, the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 1993 of 2010, claimed ownership of the share of late Pranab Prasad Roy, whose heirs had transferred the property to the petitioners.

The trial court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of, transferring, or creating third-party interests in the property; the petitioners’ appeal against that order was dismissed.

In the revision, the petitioners informed the Court that the parties had settled their disputes and pending litigation by a memorandum of agreement dated 6 October 2026.

The plaintiff did not oppose disposal on those terms.

Whether the revisional application should be disposed of in terms of the parties’ memorandum of agreement dated 6 October 2026.

Whether the judgment and order affirming the temporary injunction should be set aside in light of that settlement.

The Court identified the procedural history under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning the temporary injunction, and an earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

It did not discuss or apply any specific statutory test, precedent, or substantive legal doctrine in resolving the revision; the matter was disposed of on the basis of the parties’ settlement.

The petitioners sought disposal of the revision in accordance with the memorandum of agreement, which provided for settlement of the disputes and appropriate steps concerning pending litigation.

The plaintiff did not oppose that request, and the Court accepted the agreed basis for disposal.

In those circumstances, it disposed of the revision in terms of the agreement and set aside the impugned judgment and order.