- (1.) This application is at the instance of the defendant nos.1 and 2 and is directed against the Order No.81 dated May 18, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 3rd Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit No.988 of 2004 thereby allowing an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C.
(2.) The short question is that the original plaintiff, since deceased and predecessor-in-interest of the added plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No.988 of 2004 before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta praying for the following reliefs:- a) A decree for declaration that the plaintiff is the senior trustee in respect of the Trust Estate of Dourga Chorone Roquitte and is entitled to participate in the management of the trust properties including the said premises i.e. premises No.39, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta 700071 and to collect the usufructs of the trust properties and said premises including collection of rent, induction of tenants, accepting surrendor of tenancies, etc. b) A decree for declaration that the Opposite Parties / defendant no.7 is not the recorded tenant in the said premises and is not entitled to occupy any portion of the said premises and/or any transfer, if any, of any portion of the said premises in his favour made by the opposite parties / defendant nos.1 and 2 is illegal and bad in law, c) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 & 2 their men, agents and associates from illegally letting out and/or transferring any portion of the said premises and from illegally removing any articles and/or items from the said premises and/or not deal with the Trust properties without the written consent of the petitioner / plaintiff and from illegally making any constructions therein and from depriving the petitioner / plaintiff from participating in the day to day management and activities of the trust property and the said premises i.e. premises No.39, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta-700071 and/or any manner dealing with the same, d) Appointment of a Receiver for preservation and management of the trust property and the said premises i.e. premises No.39, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta 700071, e) Direction upon the opposite parties / defendant no.1 and 2 to submit audited accounts of the trust property on and from 1 st April, 2000, f) Costs, g) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner / plaintiff is entitled.
(3.) At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 praying for temporary injunction in the following manner:- a) Temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit restraining the opposite parties / defendant nos.1 and 2 and/or their men and/or this associates and/or their agents from illegally letting out and/or transferring any portion of the said premises and from illegally removing any articles and/or items from the said premises without the written consent of the petitioner/plaintiff and from illegally making any construction therein and from depriving the petitioner / plaintiff from participating in the day to day management and activities of the trust property and the said premises i.e. premises No.39, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta 700071 and/or in any manner dealing with the same. b) Ad interim order in terms of prayer (a) till the disposal of the petition. c) Further order or order as Your Honour may deem fit and proper. The defendants / petitioners herein contested the said application for temporary injunction denying the material allegations made in the application. They contended that the original plaintiff had no right or locus standi to file the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction. They contended that the plaintiff never participated actively in the property administration and function of the trust property. His whereabouts were not available in the last part of 1998. But, ultimately, the defendant nos.1 and 2 knew the present whereabouts of the plaintiff and then, they asked the plaintiff to attend the meeting of the trust to be held on April 15, 2004. The plaintiff did not take part in the management of the trust to file the said suit against the other trustees.;