PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and order dated April 9, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1 st Court, Barasat in Misc. Appeal No.33 of 2009 thereby affirming the order of refusal to pass ex parte order of injunction at the initial stage passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barasat in Title Suit No.459 of 2008.
(2.) THE petitioners instituted the aforesaid suit for partition, accounts and other reliefs. In that suit, they filed an 2 application for temporary injunction praying for restraining the defendants / opposite parties, their men and agents from interfering with or preventing from exercising rights of ownership in respect of the suit property and from possessing the suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint and other consequential reliefs in the said petition. That application was moved for ad interim ex parte order and upon consideration of the materials on record, the learned Trial Judge held that it was not proper to pass any order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the defendants. Being aggrieved by such orders, the plaintiffs preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.33 of 2009 and that misc. appeal was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court. Being aggrieved, this application has been filed. Now, the question is whether the Appellate Court was justified in passing the impugned order. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and on going through the materials on record, I find that the learned Appellate Court is justified in rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction.
(3.) THE short fact is that as per plaint case, the plaintiffs and the defendant no.s 1 & 2 are the heirs of Late Jitendra Nath Roy and his wife Late Amiyabala Roy. Jitendra Nath Roy died in 1980 and Amiyabala Roy died on November 6, 1992 both intested. 3 Amiyabala was a housewife and her husband had income from his jewellery business.;