A court may exercise its inherent power to allow the harvesting of standing crops to prevent the loss of perishable property during pending litigation, provided the order does not prejudice the final determination of title or possession between the contesting parties.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Mukherjee, J.

1. The exception to the report of the Special Officer appointed by the order dated 23^rd March, 2026 taken by the petitioners (defendant in the suit) filed in Court today is taken on record. A copy of such exception has been served on the opposite parties (plaintiffs in the suit).

2. The civil revisional application arises out of an order dated 6^th December, 2025 by which an application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) has been allowed, the operative portion whereof is set out hereunder:-

“That the petition under Section 151 dated 20.11.2025 Filed by the plaintiff for harvesting of the paddy crop is allowed on contest.

However, this order shall be subject to the final judgment of this Court in respect of title and possession.

Fix 09.03.2026 for hearing of the petition for temporary injunction on contest”.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 6^th December, 2025, this application has been filed by the defendants in the suit.

4. On a perusal of the records and considering the submission made by the parties, the dispute in brief which led to the filing of the said application may be summarized as follows:-

i) The plaintiffs and the defendants have claimed title and possession of the suit property which is an agricultural land which appears to be contiguous but under different Khatian numbers.

ii) The plaintiffs say that by virtue of inheritance, the plaintiffs have become the owner of the suit property. The predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs was the original recorded owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs have produced the R.S. Khatian records to show that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was the recorded owner against R.S. Khatian No. 741/9. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that their predecessor-in-interest was in possession of the suit property, pursuant thereto the plaintiffs were and are still in possession of the suit property and have been cultivating the said agricultural land. The defendants (petitioners herein) has no right, title interest over the suit property and were never in possession of any part or portion thereof.

iii) Since the defendants attempted to interfere with the possession and cultivation of the suit property, the suit was filed only for injunction without seeking any declaratory relief.

iv) On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that the name of the father of the defendants was recorded in the R.S. Khatian No. 741/36 which admittedly is different from the Khatian number of the plaintiffs’ property.

v) It is the further case of the defendants that the defendants are presently in possession of the suit property and have been cultivating the same.

vi) Initially in an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiffs (opposite parties), the following order dated 20^th January, 2024 was passed in the presence of the defendants (petitioners herein):-

“The defendants and their men and agents are hereby restrained from causing interference in the peaceful acts of possession of the plaintiffs and forbidding them from encroaching any portion of the suit property forcibly till disposal of the suit.”

This order was passed in the presence of the defendants (petitioners herein).

vii) The defendants preferred an appeal against the said order dated 20^th January, 2024.

viii) In the said appeal being Misc. Appeal No.14 of 2024 on 16^th July, 2024 the following order was passed:-

“In view of that matter, the impugned order no.06, dated 20.01.2024 passed by the learned Civi