Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. R. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.4/caveator.

2. The challenge in the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 05.04.2017, passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge, Karimganj in Misc. Appeal No. 7/2017, thereby dismissing the said appeal filed against the order dated 28.03.2017, passed by the learned Court of Munsiff No.2, Karimganj, by which the prayer for an ad-interim injunction was rejected.

3. In short, the case by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was arrayed as Defendant No.1 in T.S. No. 170/2003, which was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 7 herein. The said suit, inter-alia, was for recovery of arrear rent and for ejection of the petitioner as well as one Narayan Choudhury from the suit premises on the ground that the petitioner herein had inducted the said Narayan Choudhury as a sub-tenant in the suit premises. The said suit was allowed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Karimganj vide judgment and decree dated 19.06.2006 and the petitioner herein together with the said Narayan Choudhury were held liable to be ejected from the suit premises on the ground of sub-letting of the suit premises. An appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court, i.e. learned Civil Judge, Karimganj and the said appeal was registered as Title Appeal No. 69/2006, which was also dismissed by passing of the First Appellate judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 and the decree passed by the learned Trial Court was upheld. Both the said judgments were assailed before this Court by filing CRP No. 96/2010. This Court, by judgment and order dated 02.06.2015 was pleased to dismiss the revision by finding no infirmity in the decree passed by the courts below on the ground of sub-letting. The petitioner herein filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was numbered as SLP(C) No. 7355/16 and the same was dismissed by order dated 09.03.2016 by granting three month’s time to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises.

4. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, the decree was put into execution and the same was registered as Title Execution Case No.2/2015. In the said execution proceeding, the petitioner herein had filed his objection to the execution under section 47 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 92/2016. The said objection was rejected.

5. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner herein had come to know that the Registration Certificate (Ext.4) issued under the Shops & Establishment Act, 1971, which was the basis of decreeing the suit was fraudulently obtained and, as such, the decree passed in Title suit No. 170/2003 was challenged by filing Title Suit No. 225/2016, which is also pending for disposal before the Court of Munsiff No.2, Karimganj. Along with the said suit, the petitioner filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 203/16, inter-alia, praying for an order to restrain the respondents herein from further proceeding with Title Execution Case No. 2/2015, pending before the same learned court.

6. It is projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the proceedings of Title Execution Case No. 2/2015, the petitioner had also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 29 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for staying the execution proceeding. The said petition was registered as petition No. 219/14 dated 08.11.2016. The learned Court of Munsiff No.2, Karimganj, by an order dated 28.03.2017, rejected the prayer for injunction. As already stated above, the matter was carried in appeal and dismissal of the appeal, this revision has been filed.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notwithstanding that the decree passed in TS No