Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. :

1. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being 50 dated 7th April, 2016 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, 2nd Court at Hooghly in Title Suit No. 369 of 2013.

2. By the impugned order, the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 were directed to maintain status quo as regards the nature, character, possession and construction over the suit property as on the date of passing of the impugned order till the disposal of the suit. The defendant no.3 was further restrained by an order of temporary injunction from transferring the suit property to any third person.

3. The legality and/or propriety of the said order is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the defendant no.3.

4. Let us now consider as to whether there is any merit in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-, on 19th July, 2007. Admittedly, the defendant no.1 was the owner of the suit property at the time of execution of the said agreement. The defendant no.1 executed the said agreement on acceptance of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as earnest money. The parties agreed to complete the said transaction within Poush of 1414 B.S. It was stated therein that in spite of repeated requests to complete the said transaction on acceptance of the balance consideration money, the defendant no.1 did not execute a proper deed of conveyance for transferring his right, title and interest in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also came to learn that the defendant no.1 sold the suit property to the defendant no.2 on 17th February, 2009 who in turn again sold the suit property to the defendant no.3 in the year 2010. The plaintiff went to the defendant no.3 on 24th August, 2011 and informed him about the entire incident regarding the transaction held between the parties concerning the suit property. He also claimed that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice. However, since the defendant threatened to sell the suit property to third person and/or also trying to demolish the bamboo fencing of the suit property, the instant suit was filed.

6. After filing the said suit, injunction was sought for by the plaintiff for restraining the defendant from changing the nature and character of the suit property and from transferring, selling, alienating the suit property to any third party till the disposal of the suit.

7. The defendant no.3 contested the said suit by filing written objection claiming therein that he was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice and they claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to get any injunction order against the defendant no.3.

8. The learned Trial Judge after considering the pleadings of the parties held that when the execution of the deed of agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 is not denied, the injunction which is sought for by the plaintiff by way of interim measure, cannot be denied at this stage, when the defendant’s plea about he being the bonafide purchaser for value without notice is yet to be established in the suit during its trial.

9. The learned Trial Judge held that if the injunction as sought for, is not granted and parties are permitted to change the nature and character of the suit property, then the relief which is claimed in the suit by the plaintiff, may ultimately be frustrated.

10. Under such circumstances, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to pass the impugned order of injunction.

11. Let us now consider the legality of such interim order in the context of the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant.

12. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that the agreement for sale which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document