PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 20th July, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No.503 of 2006 extending the ad interim order.
(2.) It is to be noted that the said order was extended at the ad interim stage in a suit which has been filed by one Rita Saharan, claiming herself to have a power of attorney and claimed herself to be the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs, Sri Vikramaditya Prasad Singh Deo and Sri Udyaditya Prasad Singh Deo in the suit for declaration being Title Suit No.503 of 2006 and in the said suit, the plaintiffs claim the following reliefs: " a) Decree for declaration that the exparte decree declaring nullity of marriage of her deceased brother obtained by the deft. On 4.2.97 in T.S. no.483/94 has been obtained by practicing fraud, suppression of service and collusion and is void ab-initio effective not maintainable; b) Permanent injc. restraining the deft. From acting in any manner on the basis of the said exparte decree dated 4.2.97 obtained in T.S.483/94 from Ld. 5th Judge, City Civil Court at Cal; c) Permanent injc restraining the deft from staying the operation of the exparte decree dated 4.2.97 passed in T.S. No.483/94 and from giving effect and further effect tot he said exparte decree; d) Permanent injc. restraining the deft from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the properties of the plfs. Mentioned in the said deed of sale dated 24.7.75 and 25.7.75 being Annexure herein and other ancestral movable and immovable properties of the panchkote Raj estate upon which the plffs. Have acquired valuable right; e) Receiver; f) Commission; g) Cost of the suiit; h) Such further relief or reliefs as the ld. court may deem fit and proper."
(3.) In the said suit, application was filed by the said petitioner for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from acting in any manner on the basis of an ex parte decree 4th February, 1997 passed in Title Suit No.483 of 1994 and further, injunction has been prayed to give effect to the said decree and further injunction was prayed restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the property of the said plaintiffs in the said deed of sale dated 24th July, 1975 and 25th July, 1975.;