The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to address conflicting claims based on C.S. record of right and R.S. record of right, and to ensure expeditious disposal of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked impugning order no. 114 dated 18th January, 2020, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Baruipur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2016. 1st Lower Appellate Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of nature, character and possession of suit property till disposal of the suit, thereby reversing the order no. 46 dated 26th April, 2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Baruipur, South-24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 240 of 2013.

2. The order of 1st Lower Appellate Court granting status quo upon reversing the order of Trial Court is thus under challenge under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Before addressing the issues raised in this case, a little reference to foundational facts maybe of highest relevance. Opposite party no. 1 (Chhanda Dutta, since deceased) filed a suit being Title Suit No. 240 of 2013 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Baruipur, with a prayer for decree declaring opposite party/plaintiff and proforma defendants to be owners of suit land with a further declaration that the two deeds dated 02.09.2009 and 19.05.2010, standing in the name of petitioner (Sunil Sen @ Sunil Kumar Sen/defendant no. 30), as covered in B Schedule to the plaint, are invalid, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff and proforma defendants and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants including the petitioner from ousting opposite party/plaintiff with others from the suit property upon making construction in the suit land, and restraining further them from changing the mode of user of the suit land. The suit land pertains to C.S. and R.S. plot number 26 measuring 26 decimal of land appertaining to C.S. Khatian Number 1293, Mouza- Barhans Fartabad, P.S.- Sonarpur, District- South 24 Parganas.

4. In gist, plaintiff and proforma defendants/opposite parties claimed their title and possession in respect of suit property, mentioned in the schedule to plaint.

5. Descendants of Nandi's having superior interest holding interest in C.S. Khatian No. 1293, executed a deed of transfer in favour of defendant no. 30, on 2nd September, 2009, while descendants of Banerjee's having forcible possession (Jordang) in respect of R.S. Plot Number 26 pertaining to Khatian Number 1292 of same mouza similarly executed a deed of transfer dated 19.05.2010, in favour of defendant no. 30, thereby conveying alleged right, title, interest and possession in respect of the suit property to petitioner, who is a developer/promoter having undertaken a work of raising multistoried construction in the suit land.

6. The basis of title and alleged possession of petitioner is the two deeds, referred above and the R.S. record of right, which according to petitioner has been rightly recorded by the lawful authority concerned.

7. The petitioner, however, disputed the C.S. record of right giving rise to the claim of the plaintiff and proforma respondents over the self same land by way of inheritance alleging the same to be erroneous, fictitious and non-existent at the moment.

8. Petitioner being defendant no. 30 also filed a Title Suit No. 164 of 2011 in respect of self same plot of land for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants (including plaintiff/opposite party) from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession, and in connection with such suit on 28th July, 2011, an order of status quo was passed, which was, however, made absolute on 7th August, 2013.

9. Mr. S.N. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate representing petitioner/defendant no. 30 had challenged the legality of order of the 1st Lower Appellate Court submitting that 1st Lower Appellate Court had erroneously exercised the discretion vested to it, while reversing the order of the Trial Court thereby refusing the prayer for injunction on an app