JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. This application under section 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 9th May 2024 passed by learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri in Misc. Appeal no. 10 of 2021.By the order impugned learned court below has set aside the order of interim injunction dated 12.07.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 2nd court, Jalpaiguri in Title Suit no. 186 of 2019 and also pleased to dismiss defendant’s mandatory injunction petition and thereby allowed the said Misc. Appeal 10 of 2021 in part.

2. Opposite Party no.1 as plaintiff filed aforesaid Title Suit no. 186 of 2019 against the defendants /petitioners for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. Plaintiff’s case in a nutshell is that the plaintiff since purchase has absolute right, title, interest and possession in schedule mentioned suit property measuring 0.09 acre, appertaining to L.R Khatian no. 1729, corresponding to L.R Plot no. 983 derived from R.S Plot no. 50 and 51, sheet no. 5 derived from R.S. sheet no. 8 in Mouza Dabgram. Plaintiff’s further contention is that he purchased the land by way of registered deed dated 05.06.1980 from the legal heirs of Paresh Chandra Bhowmick and acquired possession.

3. One Chikenswari Devi was the original owner in respect of suit land who during her lifetime transferred the suit land along with other land to said Paresh Chandra Bhowmick by a deed dated 09.07.1965 and delivered possession thereof to the transferee. After death of Paresh, his legal heirs transferred the suit land in favour of plaintiff/respondent. Accordingly mutation certificate has also been granted in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff’s name also recorded in the L.R Record of Right. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant tried to dispossess him from the suit land by demolishing the guard wall. He filed the suit for declaring his right, title and possession in the suit property along with a prayer for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and also for an ad interim injunction to that effect.

4. Defendant no. 2 is contesting the suit by filing written statement and the specific case of the defendant is that plaintiff has not come before the Trial court with clean hand, in so far as he earlier filed a suit against defendant no. 2 and others being Title Suit no. 261 of 2003, in connection with present suit land which he suppressed before the Trial Court. Further case of defendant no. 2 is that one Mahendra Kumar Agarwal also instituted a suit in the same court being Title Suit no. 295 of 2013 in respect of the selfsame suit land wherein Mahendra made a prayer for declaration and recovery of possession, admitting possession of the appellant/defendant no. 2. It is further submitted on behalf of defendant no. 2 that said Mahendra obtained ex-parte decree against defendant no. 2 behind his back and for which he filed Misc. case No. 45 of 2018 for setting aside the said exparte decree. Subsequently said Mahendra put the decree in execution being Title Execution no. 2 of 2017 and in the said execution case a specific report was submitted by Nazir on 05.07.2017 that the property in question was found in possession of the judgment debtor i.e.the petitioner herein.

5. In the aforesaid suit being T.S. 186 of 2019, plaintiff moved a prayer for exparte ad interim injunction and Trial Court by an order dated 12.07.2019 restrained respondent from entering into the suit land. Defence contention is, being armed with the said ad interim order plaintiff took forcible possession of the suit property. Defendant no.2 preferred Misc. Appeal No. 51 of 2019 against the said order of ad interim injunction dated 12.07.2019 and learned District Judge by an order dated 12.09.2019 was pleased to set aside the said ad interim order granted in favour of plaintiff.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by learned District Judge, Jalpa