JUDGMENT (TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.)

By a separate Judgment, my learned brother R.V. Raveendran, J. has allowed the appeal, whereas, by this Judgment, I have dismissed the appeal for the reasons set out in the Judgment.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2005 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court at Calcutta in C.O. No.3868 of 2004. By the impugned order, the learned Judge, in the exercise of his supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, had set aside the concurrent orders of the courts below which had rejected the application for injunction filed by the plaintiffs-respondents and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit properties which have been fully described in Schedules `A and `B to the plaint as follows: Schedule A

"All that piece and parcel of land measuring 6.5 decimal together with structures standing thereon in Dag No.129 Khatian No.943, R.S. Plot No.233 being the portion of premises No.108A, Dr. Girindra Sekhar Basu Road, Calcutta-700 039, Police Station Kasba, District South 24- Parganas.....

Schedule B

All that the premises No.108, Dr. Girindra Sekhar Basu Road, Calcutta-700 039 Police Station Kasba, being land with structure lying and situate at the South Western side under Dag No.129, Khatian No.943, Mouza Kasba, District South 24-Parganas....."

4. The respondents as plaintiffs instituted the suit in the First Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal against the appellants, inter alia, praying for a decree for declaration that the appellants had no right, title and interest in the suit properties and for permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, the respondents filed an application for injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from disturbing, alienating, dealing, encroaching and/or interfering with the possession of the respondents in respect of the suit properties (in short "the application for injunction") in which it was, inter alia, alleged that in view of an earlier order of this Court in SLP [C] No.4263-65 of 1992, the respondents were entitled to an order of injunction as prayed for. Both the courts below on the interpretation of the order of this court rejected the application for injunction of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents moved an application before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution which was allowed by the impugned order. By the impugned order, the High Court had set aside the concurrent orders of the courts below rejecting the application for injunction and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by this order, the instant special leave petition has been filed in respect of which leave has already been granted.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after examining the entire materials on record, including the order passed by the High Court, the courts below as well as the order passed by this court in SLP [C] No.4263-65 of 1992, we find that the High Court as well as the courts below disposed of the application for injunction primarily on the interpretation given to the aforesaid order of this court in SLP [C] No.4263-65 of 1992. As the only question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the concurrent orders of the courts below rejecting the application for injunction under Article 227 of the Constitution on a different interpretation given to the order of this court in SLP [C] No.42