IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee

CS No. 213 of 2024

WITH

G.A/4/ 2025

GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024, GA/3/2024, GA NO.5/2025, GA/6/2025,

GA/8/2025, GA/9/2025

MD. RIYAZ KHAN & ANOTHER.

Vs.

SAFED DETERGENT PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS For Plaintiff : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee

Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya

Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar

Mr. Arnab Sardar

Mr. Souradeep Banerjee,

Advocates

For Applicant in GA/3/2024 and : Mr. Sankarsan Sarkar,

GA/5/2025. Mr. Aditya Kanodia,

Advocates

For Petitioner in GA/8/2025. : Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr.Adv.,

Mr. Arik Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Srijani Mukherjee, Adv.

Advocates

For Defendant no.24. : Mr. Sushovit Dutt Majumder,

Mr. Arif Ali,

Mr. Aritra Basu,

Ms. Rajeshwari Prasad,

Advocates

Mr. Sakya Sen Sr. Adv.

For Defendant no.10. :

Mr. Zeeshan Haque,

Mr. S. Choudhury,

Advocates

:

Mr. Ardhendu Nag, Adv.

For the Defendant no.9.

Mr. Anupam Kumar Dey, Adv.

Mr. Dibakar Das, Adv.

Mr. S. C. Mitra, Adv.

Mr. Soham Banerjee, Adv.

Advocates Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta, Adv.

For Defendant no.24 (The :

Mr. Jaydeb Ghorai, Adv.

Agarpara Company Limited)

Mr. Diptesh Ghorai, Adv.

Advocates Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee, Adv.

For the defendant no.5. :

Mr. Debdut Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Biswaroop Ghosh, Adv.

Advocates 25.08.2025 Heard on :

Judgment on : 5th December, 2025 Arindam Mukherjee, J:

1. In a suit for injunction several applications have been filed by the parties thereto as also by a non-party seeking intervention. The first in order of time is that by the plaintiffs’ which is an application inter alia for injunction being G.A. no. 1 of 2024.

2. G.A. No. 2 of 2024 is an application filed by defendant no. 24 inter alia for rejection of plaint, G.A. No. 3 of 2024 and G.A. No. 5 of 2025 are applications filed by a non-party (Agarpara Jute Mill) for leave to intervene in the nature of pro interesse suo.

3. G.A. No. 4 of is an application by defendant no. 10 for rejection of plaint and dismissal of suit.

4. G.A. No. 6 is an application filed by the defendant no. 8 for expunging its name from the array of defendants. G.A. No. 8 of

2025 is an application for dismissal of the application being G.A. 2 of 2024.

5. G.A. 9 of 2025 is an application filed by defendant no. 9 for expunging its name from the array of defendants.

6. Since there is a dispute regarding the representation of defendant no. 24, the application for rejection of plaint filed by the defendant no. 24 being G.A. No. 2 of 2024 and the application for dismissal and G.A. 8 of 2025 being an application also by defendant no. 24 represented by a different group are not taken up for consideration at the first instance, though both the groups who claim to represent the defendant no. 24 have been given an opportunity of hearing. The application made by third party to the suit is also not taken up for consideration at the first instance, although the said applicant had been given an opportunity of hearing.

7. G.A. 4 being an application for rejection of plaint by the defendant no. 10 is therefore taken up for consideration by giving the applicant, the plaintiff, the two groups of defendant no. 24, defendant no. 8, defendant no. 9 and the third party intervener.

Argument on behalf of defendant no. 10 (applicant).

A. The defendant no. 10 has sought for rejection of plaint on three broad heads. The first ground is that the suit involves the adjudication of right, title and interest in an immovable property situated outside the jurisdiction of this court and as such the same is a suit for land. Secondly, it is contended that the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of action and as such it is hit by the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC). Thirdly the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short ‘1963 Act’) in as much as the plaintiff has only claimed for injunction and has not sought for any relief regarding declaration of their rights which was necess