The court's decision emphasized the importance of disposing of the application for temporary injunction on merit within a specified time-frame period, while maintaining status quo as regards alienation and transfer of the suit property, in a suit for specific performance of contract.

1. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order – viz. Order No.2 dated January 30, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Hooghly in Title Suit No.155 of 2014 – at the instance of the plaintiffs.

2. By the impugned order the plaintiffs’ prayer for ad-interim injunction was refused. An interim order of injunction was prayed for restraining the defendants from encumbering the suit property in any manner or from transferring the same to any third party and from changing the nature and character of the suit property during pendency of the suit. The suit was a suit for specific performance of contract.

3. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction is yet to be decided by the learned trial Judge on merit, we are of the view that if any finding and/or observation on the merit of the plaintiffs’ application is made by this court at this stage, such finding or observation may ultimately prejudice the learned court below while disposing of their application for temporary injunction.

4. Accordingly, we feel that justice will be subserved if, instead of entering into the merit of this appeal at this stage, we dispose of it by requesting the learned trial Judge to dispose of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction on merit within a time-frame period.

5. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that his clients have already filed objection to the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction in the court below. However, the plaintiffs have not yet filed any counter-objection thereto.

6. We, thus, permit the plaintiffs to file counter-objection to the objection filed by the defendants within one week after reopening of the court after the ensuing Christmas vacation and request the learned trial Judge to make all endeavour to dispose of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction by the end of February 2017.

7. It is, however, made clear that while considering the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction the learned trial court will be absolutely free to decide the application for temporary injunction on merit on the basis of the materials which will be placed before it, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.

8. However, for the ends of justice we direct the parties to maintain status quo as regards alienation and/or transfer of the suit property to any third party and/or parting with possession thereof till the end of February 2017 with a rider that in the event the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction cannot be disposed of by the learned trial Judge by that time, the learned trial court may consider the plaintiffs’ prayer for extension of such interim order for a limited period within which the application for temporary injunction should be decided finally on merit.

9. With the observations as above, the appeal and the injunction application (CAN No.8840 of 2015) are disposed of.

10. Certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.