PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the Order No.3 dated March 17, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barasat in Misc. Appeal No.39 of 2009 thereby reversing the Order No.3 dated March 17, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Barasat in Title Suit No.141 of 2009.
(2.) THE petitioner along with the proforma opposite party herein instituted a suit for partition being Title Suit No.141 of 2009 and they filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. for temporary injunction along with a prayer for ad interim injunction. That application for temporary injunction was moved on March 17, 2009 and by the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as it stood on that day till April 16, 2009. Being aggrieved by such an order the defendant / opposite party herein preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.39 of 2009 which was allowed on contests thereby setting aside the impugned order. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, this application has been preferred by the plaintiff. Upon hearing the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the plaintiff / petitioner herein has wrongly described the order under challenge in this application. In fact, the Misc. Appeal No.39 of 2009 had been allowed on contests on April 17, 2009 and that judgment and order dated April 17, 2009 passed by the Appellate Court is under challenge before this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, though a wrong description has been made, this application is treated as one challenging the order dated April 17, 2009 passed by the 1st Appellate Court.
(3.) AS recorded earlier, while dealing with the prayer for ad interim injunction, I find that by the order dated March 17, 2009 the learned Trial Judge directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as it stood on that day till April 16, 2009. Thus, I find that the said interim order was for a limited period and its life was only up to April 16, 2009. It is surprising to note that against such an order, the Misc. appeal in question was disposed of on April 17, 2009 when the life of the interim order had already expired. So, the said Misc. appeal should have been dismissed being infructuous without going into details as to the merits of the interim order of injunction. Therefore, at this revisional stage, I am of the view that since the life of the interim order of injunction had already expired before the date of passing impugned judgment and order by the 1st Appellate Court, nothing should be discussed as to the merits of the same.;