PRASENJIT MANDAL, J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant No. 1(b)/respondent No.1(a) and is directed against the judgment dated July 4, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Sealdah in Misc. Appeal No.7 of 2008 thereby reversing the order No.61 dated January 11, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1 st Court, Sealdah in Title Suit No.80 of 2003. The plaintiffs/appellants/opposite parties herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.80 of 2003 for declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendant No.s 3 to 5 are joint thika tenants of the 'C ' schedule property, permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.s 1 and 2 from trespassing the 'C ' schedule property and/or from changing the nature and character of the said property by raising any structure thereon and/or from transferring 'C ' schedule property or any portion thereof in anyway or manner and from interfering with the plaintiffs ' peaceful possession and injunction of the 'C ' schedule property and other consequential reliefs.
(2.) IN that suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction against the defendants praying for restraining them from trespassing in the 'C ' schedule property and/or from changing the nature and character of the said 'C ' schedule property in any way. Initially, the learned Trial Judge, by an interim order, directed the parties to maintain status quo of the suit property. After appearance, the defendants filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC. The learned Trial Judge disposed of both the applications thereby rejecting the application of the plaintiffs for temporary injunction and allowing the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC filed by the petitioner and the defendant No.1(a). The plaintiffs preferred a Misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No.7 of 2008. The said Misc. Appeal was allowed by the Lower Appellate Court thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. The Lower Appellate Court also restrained the defendants from transferring, alienating any portion of the suit property to any person till the disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the order of the Lower Appellate Court, this application has been filed by the defendant/petitioner herein. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
(3.) UPON hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, I find that admittedly, Sarat Chandra Naskar (since deceased) was the Zaminder/landlord in respect of the suit property. Admittedly, the defendant No.3 of the said suit filed a suit being Title Suit No.470 of 1988 for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession against one Shelly Roy and others in respect of the 'A ' schedule property as described in the present suit. Upon a contested hearing, the said suit was decreed in favour of the defendant No.s 3 to 5 in part.;