Ex-parte injunctions must be resolved within 30 days as per statutory requirements; injunction procedures should not be converted into a mini-trial and must adhere to existing materials.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in FAO No.52/2024 and the petitioners in CRP(IO) No.118/2024. Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents in both the proceedings.

2. Both the matters are interconnected and as such taken up together for disposal.

3. The respondents herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No.58/2023 seeking a declaration that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the premises as described in Schedule-A which includes the suit land and described in Schedule-B to the plaint; declaration that the plaintiffs are the coparceners of the defendant No.1 along with the defendant Nos.3 to 7 having right, title and interest with respect to the properties of the defendant No.1; declaration that forming of a partnership vide the Deed of Partnership dated 15.12.2003 and Deed of Dissolution of the Partnership firm dated 05.01.2004 under the name and style of Bhadridas Pannalal by the defendant Nos.9 & 11 are illegal, inoperative and liable to be cancelled; declaration that the defendant Nos.9 & 11 were never the owners of the premises as described in Schedule-A which includes the suit land as described in Schedule-B and they have no right, title and interest over the same and further, the defendants have no right to make construction over the suit land and construction made so far is illegal and needs to be demolished; declaration that the recording of the name of the defendant No.1 as partnership firm and thereafter recording the names of the defendant Nos.9 & 11 in the revenue records and in the municipal record with respect to the suit land and the premises of Schedule-A are illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, and as such, liable to be cancelled and the insertion of the defendant No.1 in the revenue records and the municipal records as owner of the suit land and premises of Schedule-A; declaration that the defendant Nos.9 & 11 or their legal heirs have no right and authority to enter into and negotiate for the sale and/or transfer the suit land as described in Schedule-B and the illegal construction standing thereon or any part thereof and/or doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs over in respect of the same and/or part thereof ; preliminary decree for partition; appointment of receiver; permanent injunction restraining the dependents, their heirs, representatives, attorneys, workers, agents including persons working under them from making any construction of the suit land and prohibiting them from transferring/alienating/mortgaging/leasing etc. of the suit land as described in Schedule-B thereto or the illegal construction raised thereon or any part thereof and doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs; permanent mandatory injunction to dismantle the legal construction made over the suit premises etc. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.58/2023.

4. Along with the said suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application seeking ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the opposite parties, their representatives, attorneys, workers etc. from making any construction over the suit land and further prohibiting them from transferring/alienating/mortgaging/ leasing etc. of the suit land as described in Schedule-B or the illegal construction raised thereon or any part thereof and doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs and also temporary mandatory injunction to dismantle the illegal construction made over the suit premises. The said injunction application was