Point of Law: Order to balance equities and taking into account irreparable loss, harm and injury directs parties to suit to maintain status quo as regards title to suit property meaning thereby that during pendency of suit, there shall be not be any transfer of suit property in any manner whatsoever.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 05.07.2016, passed in Misc. Appeal No.02/2016, whereby the First Appellate Court had set-aside the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No.53/2014 arising out of Title Suit No.118/2014.

3. For the purpose of disposal the instant petition, the parties herein are referred in the same status as they stand before the trial Court.

4. The petitioner herein as plaintiff, has instituted a suit claiming declaration that the plaintiff had pre-emptory right of contract to purchase the Schedule-II property at Rs.2,80,000/- from the Principal Defendant No.1 (transferee); for a direction to the Principal Defendant No.1 to execute the deed of re-conveyance in respect of the Schedule-II property in favor of the plaintiffs on receipt of Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff within a specific period as may be fixed by the Court and in the event the Principal Defendant No.1 fails to comply the direction to execute and register the deed of re-conveyance in favor of the plaintiff through the process of the Court; for declaration that the Principal Defendant No.1 is a defaulter in payment of rent and the Schedule-I premises is bonafide required by the plaintiff and Principal Defendant No.1 is liable to be ejected from the Schedule-I premises; for recovery of khas possession of Schedule-I land and premises by ejecting the Principal Defendant No.1 or his men or agents and removing all their belongings; for permanent and temporary injunction including ad-interim order restraining the Principal Defendant No.1 from any way changing the nature and feature of the Schedule – I premises, its roof etc and/or from alienating the same or any part thereof till disposal of the suit.

5. Along with said suit, an injunction application was filed seeking ad interim temporary injunction restraining the Principal Defendant No.1 from any way changing the nature and feature of the Schedule 1 premises, its roof etc and/or from alienating the same or any part thereof till the disposal of the suit. The said Misc. application was registered and numbered as Misc. (Injunction) Case No.53/2014. The Principal Defendants have duly filed their written statement as well the written objection. In the written statement so filed by the Principal Defendant No.1, it has been mentioned that in terms with the deed of family settlement dated 18.11.2020 the suit property along with other property were already amicably partitioned and such partition already acted amongst the co-sharers including the plaintiff and the Proforma Defendants in two parts and they are in separate exclusive possession as specifically mentioned in Schedule A of the said deed. It has also been mentioned that the deed of family settlement clearly shows that the suit property is already partitioned before execution of the deed of family settlement dated 18.11.2010 and the Proforma Defendant No.2 had been in possession of the suit property through the defendant No.1 as per their family partition which took place much prior to the execution of the sale deed by which the Proforma Defendant No.2’s exclusive share was transferred by way of a sale deed in favour the defendant No.1 bearing deed No.3481 dated 10.12.2013. It was the specific case in the written statement that as the suit property along with other properties were already partitioned amongst the co-sharers and as such the suit was not maintainable.

6. The Court of the Civil Judge No.1, Cachar vide an order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Misc. Case No.53/2014 after hearing the parties was of the opinion that the original suit is centered around the suit land and if there is any change in the nature and feature of the land the very purpose of the suit would be frustrated. Under such circu