Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’be Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar FMAT 49 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 M/s. Noble Estates and others Vs.

Anjan Shaw and another With FMAT 50 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 M/s. Noble Estates and others Vs.

Anjan Shaw and another With FMAT 51 of 2025 IA No: CAN 1 of 2025 M/s. Noble Estates and others Vs.

Anjan Shaw and another With FMAT 52 of 2025 M/s. Noble Estates and others Vs.

Anjan Shaw and another For the appellants : Mr. Satadup Bhattacharyya, Mr. Saptarshi Datta, Ms. Sriparna Mitra, Ms. Srinjita Ghosh, Mr. Pourush Kanti Pal, Mr. Debdut Hore For the respondents : Mr. Souma Subhra Roy, Mr. Amarnath Agarwal, Ms. Neelam Kumari, Ms. Monalisa Singha Heard on : 10.03.2025 Judgment on : 10.03.2025 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

In re: CAN 2 of 2025 in FMAT 49 of 2025

1. All the appeals and the connected applications are taken up for hearing, since they arise from the same suit, respectively against the initial order of ad interim injunction granted in the suit and from the subsequent orders of extension of the same.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks to use an affidavit-in-

opposition to the application for condonation of delay. However, upon ascertainment as to the scope of filing such opposition, we find that there is no scope of factual denial of the averments, since the respondents could not have direct knowledge regarding the goings-on between the appellants and their learned Advocates. As to the rest of the paragraphs in the condonation of delay application, those are matters of record and no affidavit is required to be filed. However, we deem that none of the allegations made in the application for condonation of delay are admitted by the respondents.

3. The ground for the delay has been indicated to be firstly that the appellants were initially advised, after passing of the impugned ad interim ex parte injunction, to file an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was duly filed. The appellants were under the impression that the same would be heard out and, as such, there would be no occasion to challenge the ad interim order. Subsequently, upon the said application being kept pending and extensions having been granted periodically in respect of the original ex parte order of injunction, the present appeal was decided to be preferred.

4. FMAT 49 of 2025 is the appeal against the original ex parte ad interim order of injunction whereas the rest of the appeals arise out of the subsequent extensions of the same.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the averments made in the application, we are of the opinion that satisfactory explanation for the delay has been given in the application. Moreover, we cannot attribute any mala fides to the appellants, since it is the appellants who would be the losers in the event the appeal was filed belatedly.

6. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed, thereby condoning the delay in filing FMAT 49 of 2025. There will be no order as to costs.

In re: CAN 1 of 2025 in FMAT 50 of 2025 &

CAN 1 of 2025 in FMAT 51 of 2025

7. Insofar as CAN 1 of 2025 filed in connection with FMAT 50 of 2025 as well as CAN 1 of 2025 in respect of FMAT 51 of 2025 are concerned, those are also applications for condonation of delay on grounds similar to the application which has already been allowed.

8. Accordingly, by the same logic, the said applications are hereby allowed, thereby condoning the delay in preferring FMAT 50 of 2025 and FMAT 51 of 2025. There will be no order as to costs.

In re: FMAT 49 of 2025, FMAT 50 of 2025, FMAT 51 of 2025 and FMAT 52 of 2025

9. All the appeals are now taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since questions both of fact and of law are involved, the appeals are admitted and are being taken up for hearing on the grounds as taken in the respective