IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC cannot override specific provisions regarding temporary injunctions, and parties must be given a chance to amend pleadings before vacating such orders.

JUDGMENT :

BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.

1. The petitioner before this Court is a plaintiff in a suit for declaration recovery of possession and injunction and is aggrieved by the Order dated 01.04.2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge Junior Division 2nd Court at Baruipur in Title Suit No. 149 of 2020 and order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge Baruipur thereby refusing to admit the Misc Appeal No. 13 of 2022 arising out of partial order vide order No. 16 dated 01.04.2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Jr.div) 2nd Court at Baruipur in connection with title suit No. 149 of 2020 by which ad-interim order of injunction granted earlier was vacated by the said Learned Court. The petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the Order dated 1-04-2022 passed by the Learned Trial Court and Order dated 04-04-2022 passed by Learned Appellate Court has come up before this Court with the instant application.

2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff before Learned Trial Court and Learned Appellate Court may be summed up thus:

(1) The Petitioner/Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and injunction and also filed application for temporary injunction in the Court of Learned Civil Judge Junior Division 2nd Court at Baruipur being Title suit No. 149 of 2020.

(2) Learned Trial Court on 12-10-2020 was pleased to pass an order of ad-interim injunction and the said order was extended from time to time till 1.04.2022.

(3) On an application being moved by the opposite party no-1 to 4 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the suit in-limine, Learned Trial Court was pleased to dispose the application under Section 151 CPC by observing and directing as follows:

“Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff drew the attention of this court to the fact that as there is specific provision U/O XIV rule 2 and order VII rule 11 of CPC, So Sec. 151 will not apply. Now, Order XIV rule 2 provides that, notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of, on a preliminary issue, the court shall pronounce judgments on all issues. Sub-rule 2 of order XIV rule 2, further provides where the issue of both law and the facts arise and the court is of the opinion that the case may be disposed of, on an issue of law, it may try that issue, if it relates to the jurisdiction of this court or bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. On the other hand, Order VII rule 11 provides the ground for rejection of plaint in which one of the ground is, the suit is barred by any law. In the light of the above discussion, this court concur with the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that if there is any bar to law or the court lacks jurisdiction, then preliminary issue can be framed on that point and the case can be disposed of and if any bar to law arise, then rejection of plaint can also be pleaded and Sec 151 of CPC will only come into picture when no specific provision had been detailed in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, if any anomaly arises in regard to some previous order, it can be surely recalled under Sec 151 of CPC.

At this juncture, when there are some vagueness in the plaint itself, in regard to the description of the property and reliefs reflected in the cause title and prayer portion are not in parity, then the court can deal with it, even suo motu, so as prevent the extension of the ad interim injunction further and vacating the interim order, as carrying out the same can lead to more anomalous situation. Though the defendant no. 1 to 4 did not state in their application U/S 151 of CPC, that schedule suit properties do not bear the plot nos and only stated the same during oral submission, but after scrutinizing the pleading, the error is apparent from the face of the pleading. The Court has ample power in view of Sec 151 of CPC so as to recall or vacate an order which is causing abuse of process of Court. Now, in regard to the question of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction, in regard to