(1) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 28th July, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge at Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2008 where by the said Misc. Appeal was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution without considering the petitioners two applications; one for restoration of his possession and another for interim injunction, on merit.

(2) The plaintiff/respondent/petitioner herein is aggrieved by that part of the impugned order by which the learned District Judge refused to entertain the petitioners those two applications on the plea of lack of jurisdiction of the Appeal Court in entertaining those applications in the said appeal. Hence, the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent/petitioner herein before this Court.

(3) Heard Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant/opposite party herein.

(4) Let me now consider as to how far the learned Appeal Court was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.

(5) The bare facts which are necessary to be taken note of, for appraisal of the merit of this revisional application, are briefly stated hereunder:-

(A) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and for injunction against the defendants/opposite parties herein claiming the following reliefs :- a) A decree for declaration that the plaintiff is one of the owners of the schedule property of Chotelal Sharma which has more fully and particularly described in the schedule. b) A decree for declaration that the defendant have no right to enter into the suit premises which has more fully and particularly described in the schedule which is under occupation and possession of the plaintiffs. c), A decree for declaration that the defendants have no right to occupy the suit premises which has more fully and particularly described in the schedule which is under the occupation and possession of the plaintiff. d) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from making any disturbance at the suit premises which has more fully and particularly described in the schedule which is under occupation and possession of the plaintiff. e) Injunction. f) Receiver. g) Costs. h) Such other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled under law.

(B) After filing the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction for protecting his possession in the suit property and also for restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property during the pendency of the suit. An ad interim order of injunction was also prayed for therein in similar manner.

(C) The learned TrialJudge, by his order being No. 1 dated 17.1.2008, was pleased to pass an ad interim order of injunction by directing the parties to maintain status quo in the suit property till 12.2.2008.

(D) The opposite parties herein instead of submitting their reply to the show cause notice issued in connection with the said injunction proceeding, filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2008 for challenging the propriety of the said order of injunction, before the learned District Judge at Howrah. The said appeal was admitted for hearing on 7th February, 2008 by the learned Appeal Court. Simultaneously the order impugned in the said appeal was also stayed till 14.3.2008, by the learned Appeal Court.

(E) In view of the aforesaid order of stay passed by the learned Appeal Court, the ad interim injunction which was passed for a limited period, could not be extended by the learned Trial Judge in the suit.

(F) The order of stay which was passed by the Appeal Court as mentioned above, was challenged by the petitioner herein before this Court and the said revisional application which was registered as C.O. No. 577 of 2008 was ultimately allowed on co