Originating Summons is strictly for declaratory reliefs, not for interim injunctions affecting tangible property rights, thus the learned Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against an order dated August 1, 2025, whereby an ad interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants/appellants in an Originating Summons from transferring, alienating, dealing, selling, encumbering or parting with any of the assets including the amounts lying in the bank accounts and the fixed deposits, which are the subject matter of the proceeding, till August 22, 2025.

2. The court is apprised that the said ad interim order was subsequently extended, challenging which another appeal has been preferred, which is now pending before the regular Bench, while the present appeal has been assigned to us.

3. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants argues that the injunction order was passed in connection with Originating Summons (for convenience, hereinafter referred to as “OS”) issued under Chapter XIII of the Original Side Rules of this Court. By taking the court through different provisions of Chapter XIII, it is argued that the same does not contemplate a regular adjudication akin to a civil suit but is a proceeding of summary nature.

4. Rule 1 of Chapter XIII provides that OS may be taken out for such relief of the nature or kind following, relating to the determination (without an administration of the estate of trust) of the questions or matters as stipulated therein. Clauses (a) to (g) of the same envisage adjudications in the nature of declaration.

5. Rule 18 of Chapter XIII provides that the Judge hearing an OS may, where he thinks fit, adjourn the same into Court for hearing and argument and where it appears to him that the matters in respect of which relief is sought cannot be disposed of in a summary manner, may refuse to pass any order on the summons, may dismiss the same and refer the parties to a suit in the ordinary course.

6. Thus, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants argues that orders affecting the rights of parties, if any, can be passed in connection with an OS only upon the summons being served and upon hearing the defendant.

7. It is next contended that although Rule 17 provides that where parties do not agree to the correctness to the facts set forth in the affidavit, the Judge may order the summons to the supported by evidence and may give directions as he may think just for the trial of any questions arising thereout, such adjudication comes only at the stage of hearing of the summons and is focused on the questions on which determination can be sought under Rule 1 or Rule 2.

8. Hence, the learned Senior Advocate submits that there is no scope of grant of any ad interim relief touching the rights of the parties prior to hearing of the parties on summons being served.

9. The learned Senior Advocate further argues that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, placed reliance on State Bank of India v. Mohuragang & Gulam Tea Estate & Anr., reported at 1988 SCC OnLine Cal 124, by observing that in the said case, the learned Single Judge had granted an interim order in the OS suit, which was duly confirmed by the Division Bench. However, it is submitted that such finding is perverse, inasmuch as the Division Bench, in the said case, did not confirm the order of the learned Single Judge; on the contrary, the appeal against the same was allowed on the ground of non-maintainability of t