IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA S/L 48

07.01.2025 CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI Court. No. 3 APPELLATE SIDE Suvayan CO 230 of 2024 Sri Rameshwar Shah alias Ramesh Shah & Anr.

Vs.

Sri Karambir Singh Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Mr. Sitesh Gupta Ms. Supriya Singh Mr. Vivek Saha …for the petitioners. Mr. Subham Gupta Mr. Reshab Kumar Mr. Debayan Goswami …for the opposite party.

1. Learned Advocate for the opposite party undertakes to file vakalatnama in connection with instant case in the department in course of this day. In the event such vakalatnama is filed department is directed to tag the said vakalatnama of the opposite party with the instant case record.

2. In this revisional application as filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India the Order No. 2 dated December 10, 2024 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Siliguri in Title Suit No. 222 of 2024 is impugned. By the impugned order leaned Trial Court refused to pass an ad interim order of injunction in the form status quo in an application under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure as filed by the plaintiff and at the same time also refused to pass an order for appointment of an advocate commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The plaintiffs felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

4. For effective adjudication of the instant revisional application the facts leading to filing of the instant revisional application by the plaintiffs/petitioners are required to be dealt with in a nutshell.

5. It is the plaint case in Title Suit No. 222 of 2024 that the plaintiffs are the joint owners of the suit property and they were in settled possession of the same. It is the further plaint case that taking advantage of the advanced age of the plaintiffs the defendant was making an attempt to disposes the plaintiffs from the suit property and thus the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree for declaration, decree for permanent injunction along with other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit the plaintiffs have come forward with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for ad interim order for injunction. However, such prayer was not considered favourably by the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court directed the plaintiffs to serve notice upon the defendant who had lodged a caveat prior to the filing of the said suit and thus fixed a returnable date.

6. On the returnable date the plaintiffs have come forward with another application under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In their application under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure the plaintiffs have stated that during the pendency of the suit the defendant has entered into the suit property and thus in the said application under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure plaintiffs apprehended that in the event the defendant changes the nature and character of the suit property, the very purpose of filing Title Suit No. 222 of 2024 would become infructuous and accordingly the plaintiffs had prayed for an ad interim order of status quo which was turned down by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order. By the self-same impugned order learned Trial Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ application for appointment of a commissioner for local inspection ex parte.

7. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners submits before this Court that the impugned order is required to be set aside inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has failed to visualize the extreme urgency as pleaded by the plaintiffs in their application under Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that in the event the ad interim order of status quo as sought for before the learned Trial Court is not granted the very purpose of filing the said Title Suit would beco