The principle that a prior sale takes precedence over a subsequent sale is affirmed, emphasizing the High Court's limited scope of interference under Article 227.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This Civil Misc. Petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure-4) passed in I.A. No.66/2022 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kujanga and the impugned order dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure-5) passed in F.A.O. No.25 of 2022 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kujanga.

2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Misc. Petition, which promoted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opp. Party (Kalpana Tarai) being the sole plaintiff filed a suit vide C.S. No.84/2022 against the petitioner of this CMP (Bhagabati Tarai) arraying her as defendant No.1 along with others in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kujanga praying for declaration of her right, title, interest and possession over the properties described in Schedule “C” of the plaint and also to declare the R.S.D. No.733 dated 22.04.2006 executed by the defendant No.2 Srikrushna Das in favour of the defendant No.1 (petitioner in this CMP Bhagabati Tarai) as illegal, invalid, void and the same is not binding upon her and to injunct the defendant No.1 (petitioner in this CMP) permanently from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over “C” schedule suit properties stating in her plaint in nutshell that, the suit properties along with other properties originally belonged to one Satish Chandra Das. After the death of Satish Chandra Das, the suit properties along with other properties left by him devolved upon his widow wife and his children including her vendor Subhadra Das. After the death of Satish Chandra Das, his all successors including her vendor Subhadra Das partitioned to their all joint properties including the suit properties and in such partition, the suit properties described in Schedule “C” along with some other properties fell in the share of Subhadra Das and accordingly, Subhadra Das became the exclusive owner over the suit properties. The said Subhadra Das (defendant No.5 in the suit vide C.S. No.84/2022) sold her schedule “C” suit properties in her favour i.e. in favour of the plaintiff executing and registering Sale Deed No.731 dated 14.03.2001 after receiving the due consideration amount and delivered possession thereof. As such, since the date of purchase i.e. since 14.03.2001, she (plaintiff) is in exclusive possession over the Schedule “C” suit properties. When the defendant No.1 created disturbances in her possession over the suit properties and claimed claiming her title thereon, then, she (plaintiff-Kalpana Tarai) filed the suit vide C.S. No.84/2022 against the petitioner in this CMP arraying her as defendant No.1 along with others including her vendor Subhadra Das praying for the aforesaid reliefs i.e. declaration and permanent injunction.

3. In the said suit vide C.S. No.84/2022, the plaintiff (Opp. Party in this CMP) filed an I.A. vide I.A. No.66/2022 under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 against the defendant No.1 (petitioner in this CMP) praying for injuncting her temporarily from coming upon the suit land and from interfering in her peaceful possession and from causing any damage to the standing vegetable crops and from making any type of construction over the same and from changing the nature and character of the same till the final disposal of the suit vide C.S. No.84/2022 stating the above things.

4. Having been noticed from the Court in I.A. No.66/2022, the defendant No.1 thereof (petitioner in this CMP) challenged the same by filing her objection taking her stands that, the suit properti