Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) This application is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated November 28, 2008 passed by the learned District Judge, North 24 Parganas at Barasat in Misc. Appeal No.96 of 2008 arising out of an order no.16 dated August 2, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Barasat in Title Suit No.193 of 2008.
(2.) The plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a suit being T. S. No.193 of 2008 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barasat praying for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint. At the time of filing of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff contended that he purchased the suit property by a deed of conveyance dated July 27, 1987 from Alauddin Shaw and others who inherited the same from the original owner, Chhamiraddin Biswas. During temporary absence of the plaintiff from the suit property, the defendants forcibly entered into the suit property with the help of some designed persons having vested interest. So, the plaintiff had to file the said suit. He prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from transferring, alienating or letting out or parting with possession of the suit property to any third party in any way and from changing the nature and character of the suit. The defendants appeared in the suit and they contested the application for temporary injunction. They filed a written objection against the petition for temporary injunction. They also filed a written statement in support of their defence. According to their case upon amicable partition Chhamiraddin Biswas got 16 decimals of lands. The defendants also purchased land from the other heirs of Chhamiraddin Biswas and an amicable partition was held between them. Accordingly, the plaintiff got northern half portion of the land to the extent of 8 decimals of land and the defendants got 8 decimals of land to the southern side. Thereafter, the plaintiff transferred his 8 decimals of land in favour of the son of the defendant, namely, Jyotirmoy Dey by a kobala dated July 24, 1991. The plaintiff is totally silent on such deed dated July 24, 1991. Thereafter, the defendants entered into an agreement for development of the land with a developer for making a new construction on demolition of the old building. The developer has collected huge materials for the purpose of construction and in fact, construction had been done up to the roof level. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs stated. So, the plaintiff has no prima facie case at all.
(3.) Upon consideration of the rival claims by the parties, the learned Trial Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property till disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Trial Judge, the defendants preferred a misc. appeal which was dismissed on contest and the learned Appellate Court also directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the suit property till disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by such order of the learned District Judge in the said misc. appeal, this application has been preferred.;