JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The certified copy of the impugned order, filed today in court, be kept on record.

2. In view of arguable questions of fact and law being involved, the appeal is admitted, to be heard on the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal.

3. On consent of both parties, since the issues involved in the injunction application and the appeal are virtually the same, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing along with the application.

4. The genesis of the dispute is a property belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) by the name of Ramdas Mahadeo Parsad HUF.

5. Disputes having arisen between the parties at a juncture when one Bijoy Swaika was the Karta of the HUF, an arbitral proceeding was initiated, which culminated in an award dated September 9, 2010.

6. In terms of the award, the total property belonging to the HUF was sub-divided into several schedules.

7. Whereas other schedules were allocated individually to the coparceners/their HUFs, the fourth schedule remained a joint property.

8. To give further effect to the award, a deed of family arrangement was entered into subsequently between all concerned in the month of September, 2010.

9. By dint of the same, the fourth schedule was retained as a part of the Ramdas Mahadeo Parsad HUF with Bijoy Kumar Swaika as Karta and his wife Smt. Kusum Swaika as a member thereof.

10. Subsequently, a partition suit was filed by the present respondent no.1, impleading the present appellant as well as other joint family members, wherein the subject property covered by the fourth schedule referred to above was also included.

11. In the said suit, on an application being filed by one of the defendants, being the wife of Rajeev Swaika (the present appellant), an order of status quo was passed in respect of the suit property, including the fourth schedule property.

12. Subsequently, an application was filed by the plaintiff therein, that is, the defendant/respondent no.1 herein, for vacating the said status quo order, alternatively for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to sue afresh on the self-same cause of action.

13. It is an admitted position that subsequently, during arguments, the present respondent no.1 (plaintiff in the said suit) categorically clarified that the said plaintiff intended to withdraw his partition suit without liberty to sue afresh.

14. The said application was filed in the month of September, 2025.

15. However, till date the same is pending before the suit court, due to objections being raised by the present appellant.

16. In the said suit, the present appellant, that is, one of the defendants therein, sought to file a written statement with a counter claim.

17. However, the learned Single Judge, by the last order passed in the said suit, indicated that the application for vacating/withdrawal would be taken up at the stage when the suit was filed, apparently signifying that the said application would be decided prior to permitting the present appellant to proceed with his counter claim.

18. Subsequently, the present suit has been filed for partition of the aforementioned fourth schedule properties by the present appellant.

19. In connection with the said suit, where the fourth schedule properties are the primary subject matter, an application for temporary and ad interim injunction was filed by the plaintiff/present appellant.

20. By the order impugned in the present appeal, the learned Single Judge, despite having observed that the suit properties are joint, refused to grant ad interim injunction primarily on the premise that no urgency had been made out.

21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the attempt of the respondent no.1 to withdraw his partition suit in the teeth of the status quo order subsisting therein was the primary trigger to file the second partition suit.

22. It is submitted that since the appellant herein has been precluded from moving his counter claim (also claiming partition) in the previous partition suit of t