An ad interim order of injunction cannot be granted where there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the owner of the suit property, and the owner of the suit property is not a party to the suit.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No.2 dated 26th April, 2016 passed by the learned Judge in-Charge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 491 of 2016 at the instance of the defendants/appellants.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to pass an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, mortgaging, encumbering, dealing with and/or parting with possession of the suit premises to any person, save and except in compliance of the terms of the agreement for sale dated 5th February, 2016 executed by and between the parties till 25th May, 2016. The said ad interim order of injunction was further extended by the learned Trial Judge and the said order is still in force. Such an ad interim order of injunction was passed by the learned Trial Judge in a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent.

3. The plaintiff claims that he entered into an agreement for sale with the defendants for purchasing the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees eight crore only). He further claims that he has paid a sum of Rs. 51,00,000/- (Rupees fifty one lakh only) by cash to the defendants towards earnest money. Such agreement for sale was entered into between the parties on 5th February, 2016. Time for completion of the said agreement was fixed in the said contract. It is provided therein that the said transaction should be completed within six months from the date of entering into such agreement. There is also a provision for extension by one month for completion of the said transaction.

4. Since during subsistence of the said agreement for sale, the defendants were trying to sell the suit property to the stranger purchaser, the plaintiff filed the said suit seeking declaration about the validity and/or legality of the said agreement for sale entered into between the parties on 5th February, 2016. He has also prayed for injunction for restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, mortgaging, encumbering, dealing with and/or parting with possession of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. An ad interim injunction was also prayed for in the said application for injunction in similar term.

5. Learned Trial Judge while dealing with the plaintiff's application for ad interim injunction held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for going to trial. Learned Trial Judge has also held that the balance of convenience and inconvenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. Such conclusion was drawn by the learned Trial Judge as the learned Trial Judge found that an agreement was entered into between the parties and in pursuance of the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 51,00,000/- (Rupees fifty one lakh only) has already been paid in cash by the plaintiff to the defendants towards earnest money. Learned Trial Judge also found that time for completion of the said agreement has not yet expired. Under such circumstances, learned Trial Judge passed the aforesaid ad interim order of injunction. The legality and/or correctness of the said ad interim order of injunction is under challenge in this appeal before us.

6. Let us now test the legality of such impugned order in the facts of the instant case.

7. Since we are considering the legality and/or propriety of the ad interim order of injunction, we will have to restrict ourselves to consider the legality of such impugned order with reference to the pleadings of the plaintiff made out in the plaint as well as in the injunction application. At this stage, we cannot consider the pleadings made out by the defendants in the stay application to ascertain the legality of the impugned order. As such while considering the legality of the impugned order, we will confine ourselves to the pleadings made out by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the injunction application.

8. On reading the plaint as well