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

The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee And The Hon’ble Justice Om Narayan Rai APOT 94 of 2025 With IA No: GA 1 of 2025 Srijan Realty Pvt. LTd. & Ors.

Vs.

John Augustine & Anr.

For the Appellants : Mr. S. N. Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Suman Kr. Dutt, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv.

Mr. Abhisek Baran Das, Adv.

For the Plaintiff/Petitioner : Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S.N. Mookherji, Sr. Adv Mr. Ranjan Bachhawat, Sr. Adv Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick, Adv.

Mr. Saptarshi Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Suryaneel Das, Adv. Mr. Akash Munshi, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Shivangi Agarwal, Adv.

For the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 / : Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv.

Proforma Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Mr. Pijush Roy, Adv.

Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv.

Ms. Shrayashee Das, Adv.

Mr. Rohan Kumar Thakur, Adv.

Mr. Tridibesh Dasgupta, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : 02.05.2025 Judgment on : 14.05.2025 Om Narayan Rai, J.:-

1. Although initially the application for stay being GA 1 of 2025 was slated to be heard, yet since all the papers that were there before the learned Single Judge are there before us, by consent of the parties we have heard the appeal itself.

2. The defendant nos. 3, 5 and 6 in the suit being CS 35 of 2025 have preferred the instant appeal laying challenge to a judgment and order dated March 20, 2025, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in GA 1 of 2025 arising out of CS 35 of 2025, thereby granting an ex parte ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants in the suit (i.e. the appellants and the proforma respondents) inter alia from carrying on any further construction at or alienating or transferring or disposing of the suit property to any third party.

3. Since the appeal is directed against an ex parte ad interim order of injunction passed in a suit, in view of the law as it stands today, the Court should, at this stage, proceed on the assumption that all the averments made in the plaint and in the application for injunction are true. The case run in the plaint therefore needs to be noticed first. Briefly summed up, the plaint case is as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff no. 1 is the Metropolitan Bishop of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon and the Chairman of Indian Church Trustees. The plaintiff no. 2 namely the Indian Church Trustees has been stated to be a body incorporated by the Royal Charter dated June 11, 1929 and published in the Gazette of India on July 20, 1929 at Shimla under Section 6(1) of the Indian Church Act, 1927. It has been alleged that the plaintiff no. 2 is a body corporate which can sue and be sued in its own name.

(b) Paragraphs 1 to 11 of the plaint have been devoted to narrating the history of the Church of India in order to project that the properties of Church of India are vested with the plaintiff no. 2 and that the Church of India is in effective control of and has been administering the Church properties.

(c) The plaintiffs have been uninterruptedly enjoying and possessing premises no. 224, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose, Kolkata- 700017 lying and situated within the jurisdiction of the Karaya Police Station, Ward No. 69 which forms the subject matter of the suit. The said property is “under the ownership of the Indian Church held through the plaintiff no. 1”. The plaintiffs have been regularly paying property tax to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

(d) The plaintiff no. 1 who has the power of operation across India and who has been managing several properties across India, has been operating through its Trustees and other office bearers.

(e) In or around September, 2024, the plaintiffs came to learn that the defendant no. 3 was constructing a building at the suit premises and the Indian Church Trustees was shown as the land owner.

(f) The members of the Indian Church Trustees held a meeting on February 22, 2025 and decided to take steps against dissipation of the church property without