Sl. No.19+20

14.05.2025 Court no.1 sp CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE JURISDICTION FMAT 24 of 2024 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 And IA No. CAN 2 of 2025 Yogesh Kumar Gupta & Ors.

Vs Yadav Investments Private Limited & Ors.

With FMAT 30 of 2024 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 And IA No. CAN 2 of 2025 Smt. Nila Barman & Ors.

Vs Yadav Investments Private Limited & Ors.

Mr. Nabankur Paul, Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh ...for the appellants in both the matters.

Mr. Deborshi Dhar, Ms. Taniya Bhowmik ...for the respondent no. 1 in both the matters.

In re: CAN 1 of 2025 in FMAT 24 of 2024.

1. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay of about 18 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. Sufficient grounds have been made out in the instant application explaining such delay. Hence, the delay is condoned.

3. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

In re: CAN 1 of 2025 in FMAT 30 of 2024.

4. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for condonation of delay of about 35 days in filing the instant appeal.

5. Sufficient grounds have been made out in the instant application explaining such delay. Hence, the delay is condoned.

6. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

In re: FMAT 24 of 2024 and FMAT 30 of 2024.

7. Both the appeals are directed against an order dated

6th August, 2024 whereby an ad interim order of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has been confirmed. The parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the suit property and also restrained from changing the nature and character of the suit property in any manner whatsoever. The defendants have also been restrained from transferring and/or alienating the suit property or creating any third party interest.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the order of injunction, could not have been passed since the original purchasers of the property have resiled from making complete payment to the plaintiffs/vendors. The appellants herein have come into the picture and purchased the property and have paid the entire consideration of Rs. 1,26,50,000/-.

9. The impugned order of injunction has also been challenged by the defendant nos. 1 to 4 who are the original vendors of the property, purchased by the appellants herein. The plaintiffs claim that they had paid a sum of Rs. 37 lakhs to the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and were ready and willing to pay the balance amount. The defendant nos. 1 to 4/vendors have in breach of the agreement between the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and the plaintiffs sold the property to the appellants herein.

10. Counsel for the appellants would argue that the respondents/plaintiffs have relied upon a forged and fictitious documents in support of their claim.

11. This Court has indicated to counsel for the parties that the matter as regards the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs/respondents can only be decided in course of trial.

12. It is now well-settled that for the purpose of deciding an inter locutory application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, the allegations of plaint are required to be taken to be true unless they appear to be ex facie unreliable or not sustainable in law. In the suit before the trial Court, the appellants have specifically contended that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are forged and fictitious. The appellants have taken out criminal proceeding against the plaintiffs/respondents. An FIR has been registered by the Bagdogra Police Station being 592 of 2023 and a charge sheet has been filed thereunder. One of the documents relied upon by the police is a report of the Questioned Documents Examination Bureau of West Bengal dated 30th March, 2024 which, according to the appellants, proves their case that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs/respondents in support of their claim for specific performance against the original vendors/defendant nos. 1 to 4 are forged and fictitious.

13. It is now well-settled