IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. No. 1018 of 2025 Shaikh Hasan Ali Versus Sk. Mostafa Mondal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Ld. Senior Advocate, Mr. Ujjal Ray For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anit Kumar Rakshit Mr. S. Rakshit Heard on : 11/06/2025 Judgment on : 11/06/2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , J. :

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant No.1 and is directed against an order being No.12 dated February 28, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) at Chandernagore in Miscellaneous Appeal No.26 of 2024 heard analogously with Miscellaneous Appeal No.25 of 2024. By the order impugned, the order of status quo passed by the learned trial judge was modified to a certain extent.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession in A-1 schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1/petitioner herein from causing any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in A1 schedule property and from making any construction in any portion of A1 schedule property and/or from changing its nature and character. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia praying for an order of temporary injunction.

3. The petitioner herein contested the application for temporary injunction by filing a written objection thereto. The learned trial judge by an order dated August 3, 2024, disposed of the application for temporary injunction thereby directing the parties to the lis to maintain status quo in respect of nature, character and possession of the suit property till the disposal of the said suit.

4. Being aggrieved by such order, petitioner preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal being No.26 of 2024. The proforma defendant Nos.2 and 3 also preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal being No.25 of 2024 challenging the selfsame order. The aforesaid miscellaneous appeals were taken up for analogous hearing by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) at Chandernagore and the same were disposed of by a judgment and order dated February 28, 2025. By the said order the Miscellaneous Appeal No.26 of 2024 was dismissed on contest and the Miscellaneous Appeal No.25 of 2024 was allowed on contest by modifying the order dated August 3, 2024 passed by the learned trial judge to the extent that the order of status quo would be operative only upon the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 instead of all the parties to the lis.

5. Being aggrieved by such order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the parties have jointly applied for conversion of the classification of the land before the concerned revenue authority and before such authority the parties have filed a sketch map signed by all of them. He further submits that though initially there was a wrong recording of the share of the respective parties in the L.R. Record of Rights but subsequently the L.R. Record of Rights have been corrected and the correct shares of the parties are now reflected in the Record of Rights. He further submits that the petitioner has obtained a sanctioned plan on the basis of the sketch map signed by the respective parties and produced before the revenue authorities and, therefore, the plaintiffs cannot raise any objection against raising construction by the defendant No.1 on the property which is marked as Lot-B in the sketch maps which are appearing at pages 55 to 59 of the civil revision application. He submits that the order of injunction passed by the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court is seriously affecting the right of the petitioners in respect of the suit property.

7. Per contra, Mr. Rakshit, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits t