In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar F.M.A. No. 711 of 2025 The Gayatri Chetna Foundation Vs.

Sri Manoj Joshi and Others With F.M.A.T. No. 122 of 2025 +

CAN 1 of 2025 Smt. Anjana Meharia and Others Vs.

Sri Manoj Joshi and Others For the appellants in FMAT No.122 of 2025 : Mr. Piush Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Suman Basu, Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Ms. Debapriya Ghosh For the respondent nos.1 to 5 : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Mr. Amit Kumar Nag, Mr. Partha Banerjee, Ms. Pritha Bhowmick, Ms. Ranjabati Roy For the appellant in FMA No.711 of 2025 and For the respondent no.7 in FMAT No.122 of 2025 : Mr. Saptansu Basu, Ld. Sr. Adv., Ms. Dabasree Dhamli, Ms. Debaleena Chatterjee Hearing concluded on : 23.04.2025 Judgment on : 28.04.2025 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the proforma defendant no. 6-

Trust and the defendant nos.1 to 4 respectively, against the self-same order of ad interim injunction passed in a suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents claiming a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendants, being trustees of Gayatri Chetna Foundation, the proforma defendant no.6 in the suit, are bound to act in pursuance of the objectives of the Trust Deed dated December 4, 2018, as modified by Trust Deed dated January 15, 2020, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing any act contrary to the interest of the Gayatri Chetna Foundation, not to cause any obstruction in furtherance of the objectives of the said Foundation in pursuing, developing the Academic Institute run under the name and style of Gayatri Chetna Trust, and for other consequential reliefs.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge granted ad interim injunction directing the defendant nos.1 to 5 to sign the required cheques of the Bank of Maharashtra at S.P. Mukherjee Road Branch for disbursement of the examination fees and semester charges in favour of MAKAUT and also directing the defendant nos.1 and 2 to execute all cheques for disbursement along with the plaintiff/respondent no.1 for effective and smooth running of the proforma defendant and further in the event of failure, the plaintiff/respondent nos.1 and 2 were permitted to operate the bank account of the proforma respondent. The plaintiffs were also directed to submit periodical monthly accounts before the court. The suit has been framed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/appellants in both the cases argues that the learned Trial Judge, despite being aware of a caveat having been lodged by the present appellants, granted ad interim injunction without directing service of prior notice to the caveators on the dual ground that although Smt. Anjana Meharia, the appellant no.1 in F.M.A.T. No. 122 of 2025, had lodged a caveat on behalf of the proforma defendant-Trust (the appellant in F.M.A. No. 711 of 2025), there was no resolution and authority of the said Trust empowering her to lodge such caveat and that the caveatees are related to George College and not with the Gayatri Chetna Foundation, the appellant.

4. It is argued that in terms of Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, a mandatory duty was cast upon the Court to direct service of a copy of the injunction application on the caveator and to give notice to the caveator before passing any ad interim order.

5. It is urged that since such duty was flouted while passing the impugned order, the same should be recalled. In support of such contention, learned senior counsel for the appellants cites a Division Bench Judge of this Court in the matter of Sukumar Roy & Anr v. Pratul Kumar Roy, reported at 90 C.W.N. 288.

6. Learned senior counsel next contends that in the impugned order itself, it was recorded that the urgency pleaded was that the funds of the appellant-Trust wer