IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 1811 of 2025 Shimna Engineering Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

Subhika Singh & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saptangshu Basu, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Abhrotosh Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee Ms. Saheli Sen Mr. Abir Lal Chakravorty Mr. Rajib Mollick Mf. Subham Chatterjee ….. advocates For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Srijib Chakraborty Ms. S. Mukherjee Mr. Amit Kumar Nag Mr. Subhajit Ghosh …… advocates Reserved on : 22.05.2025 Judgment on : 04.07.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the second defendant and is directed against an order dated May 15, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas (South) at Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 147 of 2025 reversing the order dated May 8, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 664 of 2025.

2. By the order dated May 15, 2025 the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas (South) at Alipore allowed the prayer for ad interim injunction thereby directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of possession and usage, specifically during ingress and egress to the suit property till the next date.

3. The opposite party herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and the proforma opposite party before the leaned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Second Court at Alipore which was registered as Title Suit No. 664 of 2025. In connection with the said suit, the opposite party filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the opposite parties prayed for an ad interim order of injunction before the learned Trial Judge on May 8, 2025.

4. The learned Trial Judge by an order dated May 8, 2025 refused to pass any ad interim order of injunction.

5. Being aggrieved, by the refusal to pass any ad interim order of injunction by the learned Trial Judge, the opposite party no. 1 herein preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 147 of 2025 before the learned District Judge, 24 Parganas (South) at Alipore and filed an application for temporary injunction in connection with the said Miscellaneous Appeal. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court, by an order dated May 15, 2025, passed an ad interim order of status quo.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated May 15, 2025 the second defendant has approached this Court.

7. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the Civil Revision Application contended that the instant suit for permanent injunction at the instance of a person claiming to be the daughter of a tenant of the suit property is not maintainable. He further contended that the opposite party no. 1 herein has not claimed any right or interest in respect of the suit property and has sought to canvass the case of a third party in the suit. He contended that the learned Trial Judge after noting that the original tenant has not come forward claiming himself to be a tenant in the suit property rejected the prayer for ad interim injunction. Mr. Basu contended that once the Court of first instance refused to grant relief of temporary injunction by a speaking order, the Appellate Court would be loath to interfere under such circumstances. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited vs. S.L. Vaswani and Another reported at (2010) 2 SCC 142. He therefore, submitted that when the learned Trial Judge refused to pass an ad interim injunction, the learned Judge of the Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with such order. Mr. Basu placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Calcutta Swimming Club vs. Lalit Singh & Ors. reported at (2009) 2 CHN 379 (DB). I