14.01.2026 In the High Court at Calcutta Item no.DL 21 Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Court No. 16 Appellate Side Asraf, A.R.(Ct.)

Case No. FMA 8 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2025 In the matter of :

ANISUR RAHAMAN (Minor)

represented by his mother and next friend Kariba Bibi …. Appellant VS.

HAFIZUR RAHMAN & ANR.

….Respondents For the Appellant :

Mr. Kaustav Banerjee Ms. Ria Kundu ….Advocates

1. The present appeal has been preferred against an order whereby the temporary injunction applications filed both by the plaintiff / respondent no.1 as well as the added defendant /

appellant were dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the partition suit, from which the present appeal arises, was instituted by the plaintiff against the original defendant. In the plaint, it was admitted that the original defendant was in occupation of the northern side of the suit property whereas the plaintiff of the southern side thereof, as per their understanding.

3. Immediately after institution of the suit, which was then beyond the knowledge of the present appellant, the sole defendant transferred his share of the property by demarcation in favour of the present appellant.

4. On the strength of such purchase, subsequently upon coming to know of the suit, the appellant took out an application for being added as a party to the suit under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was allowed vide order dated June 17, 2025.

5. It is submitted that the said application for addition of party was observed by the learned Trial Judge to be formal in nature and was allowed without any contest by the plaintiff.

6. Subsequently, since the plaintiff attempted to make construction by disturbing the possession of the added defendant / present appellant in respect of his purchased portion, a temporary injunction application was filed by the present appellant.

7. Another temporary injunction application had already been filed previously by the plaintiff, which was then pending.

8. In aid of the appellant’s injunction application, a local inspection was applied for, which was allowed. The resultant Commissioner’s report indicates that construction materials were stored on the property, although no construction was going on at the time when the Commissioner visited the property.

9. It is argued that in view of the plaintiff /

respondent no.1 seeking to raise construction, which is an admitted position, since the plaintiff apparently relied on some conversion certificate and Panchayat plan, copies of which were never given to the appellant, there is immediate danger of the best portion of the property being altered by the plaintiff / respondent no.1, thereby necessitating injunction to be imposed. However, the learned Trial Judge overlooked the said aspect of the matter and merely on the basis of such purported Panchayat plan, permitted the plaintiff to make such construction without granting any injunction in favour of the added defendant/appellant.

10. On a perusal of the plaint, we find that in paragraph no.3 thereof the plaintiff / respondent no.1 has admitted that the original defendant was in occupation of the northern portion of the suit property whereas the plaintiff / respondent no.1 is in possession of the southern side thereof.

11. It is further found from the Commissioner’s report that although at the juncture when the Commissioner visited the spot, no construction was going on, nonetheless, construction materials were accumulated on the property, which apparently indicates the intention of the plaintiff to make construction.

12. In fact, in the impugned order, it is recorded that the plaintiff submitted photocopies of conversion certificate as well as Panchayat plan, which further go on to show the intention of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 to make such construction on the suit property.

13. However, prima facie, the learned Trial Judge erred in law in relying on such photocopies, since no written objection was filed by the plaintiff / respondent