Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the Order No. 39 dated June 28, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 92 of 2004 thereby allowing an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted the aforesaid suit before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 4th Court, Howrah against the petitioner herein for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs. The plaintiff has contended that she was married to Motilal Saha (since deceased) and they lived together at 7, Baptist Burial Ground Road, under P.S. Golabari, Howrah as husband and wife. Subsequently, the husband suffered from various ailments and ultimately, he died in 2003. After the death of the husband of the plaintiff, the defendant / petitioner herein claimed that she was also married to Motilal Saha and one daughter was born in the wedlock and she claimed the right to property left by Motilal Saha. Then the plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 92 of 2004 and she filed an application for temporary injunction. On July 2, 2004, the learned Trial Judge granted ad interim order of injunction. Summons / notice was sent upon the petitioner but the defendant did not appear and ultimately, the interim order of injunction was made absolute on February 13, 2006.
(2.) IT is contended by the plaintiff that on August 22, 2004 the defendant / petitioner herein took forcible possession of the suit premises in violation of the order of ad interim injunction. So, an application was filed under Section 151 of the C.P.C. for mandatory injunction and that application was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. Now, the question for adjudication is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in passing the impugned order.
(3.) UPON hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that summons / notice could not be served upon the petitioner and in this regard, the petitioner has contended that the suit was instituted with mentioning of the wrong address of the petitioner. So, the summons/notice could not be served upon her.;