JUDGMENT :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J:

1. The petitioner before this Court is a defendant in a suit for partition and is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track 2nd Court Contai Purba Medinipore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 05 of 2019, thereby affirming the order dated March 11, 2019, passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court Contai, Purba Medinipur in Title Suit No. 1018 of 2018.

2. The case of the petitioner may be summed up thus:

1. The opposite party no. 1 being plaintiff filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and other opposite parties before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court Contai Purba Medinipur being Title Suit No. 1018 of 2018.

2. The main case of the plaintiff/opposite party no-1 in the suit is as follows:

A. Gunadhar Bar was the co-sharer in 15-1/15 decimal plot of land jointly in ‘KA’ schedule suit plot of land. Gunadhar Bar died leaving behind his wife, four sons and five daughter and accordingly each of them got 1/10th share of the property of Gunadhar Bar by inheritance. The wife and four daughters gave their portion i.e. 10-41/75 decimal plot of land to Jogesh Sasanka, and the plaintiff/respondent became owner 31/2500 share jointly in the ‘KA’ schedule suit property.

B. Plaintiff/respondent transferred the said property to Kajal Rani Manna and Ananya Khatua by gift and sale. Ananya Khatua sold 3 decimals of property to Bibhuti Manna. Bibhuti and Kajal Rani Manna sold 6 decimals property to defendant No.1. Sasanka sold his 2 decimals property to petitioner/defendant. The petitioner/defendant converted 8 decimals to ‘Bastu’ by conversion and took permission for construction of 2 storied building and constructed ground floor.

3. The petitioner/defendant appeared in the said suit by contesting the same by filing written statement.

4. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff has claimed his ownership over 31/2500 share in the ‘KA’ schedule suit property and prayed for injunction against the defendant no.1/petitioner herein to restrain him from cutting down valuable trees, digging pond and from changing the nature and character of the suit property.

5. The plaintiff initially got an ad-interim order of injunction. The petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by the order moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for permission to complete, the building as per sanctioned building plan after modifying the order of injunction.

6. On 11/03/2019 the Learned Trial Court was pleased to pass the following order;

‘Hence it is ORDERED that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby the plaintiff prays for an order of temporary injunction is allowed on contest but without any costs. The application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code Civil Procedure filed by the defendant no. 1 is rejected on contest but without any costs.

Both parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of nature, character and possession over ‘KA’ schedule suit property till disposal of the suit.

Thus both the petitions are disposed off on contest.

The plaintiff has filed one petition praying for extension of ad-interim injunction order supported by an affidavit. The said petition is rejected as it has become infructuous after disposing the application for temporary injunction.’

The petitioner/defendant no-1 being aggrieved by the Order dated 11-03-2019 passed by the learned trial Court preferred an appeal against the said order.

7. By Judgment and Order dated 30th July 2022 the Learned Appellate Court disposed the appeal preferred by the petitioner