ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THESE five appeals would relate to an order of injunction passed in the first two applications being GA No. 1336 of 2008 and GA No. 3330 of 2008 and dismissal of the other three applications being GA No. 3814 of 2008, 3234 of 2008 and 3814 of 2008. His Lordship dealt with and disposed of all the five applications by a common judgement and order that was impugned herein. We thus dispose of the five appeals arising out of those five applications by the fore-going judgement and order.
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 filed a suit being CS No. 83 of 2008 inter-alia praying for removal of the trusties of a private trust being Prayag Devi Trust. It was alleged, trust was not managed properly and the Trustees being the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Madhu Agarwal and Amit Kumar Agarwal were acting in detriment to the interest of the beneficiary. They committed breach of trust. Simultaneously with the filing of the suit, the plaintiff also made application for appropriate management of the trust properties. There were several applications that were disposed by a common judgement and order delivered by the learned Single Judge on August 16, 2010. The present appeals would however principally relate to the order passed in GA No. 3330 of 2008 pertaining to Allahabad property that the defendant would contend, outside the scope of the trust. The respective memorandum of appeal would however, relate to the orders passed by His Lordship in respect of all the applications. Mr. Pratap Chatterjee learned senior counsel, appearing in support of the appeals would contend, the respondent-plaintiff never asked for injunction in respect of the partition suit pending in the Allahabad Court. Trust, in any event, was not a party either in the Calcutta suit or in the partition suit. Hence, the observation of His Lordship with regard to not making the trust a party in the Allahabad suit was erroneous. The order of injunction passed in respect of Allahabad property could thus not be sustained. He would contend, the suit was in effect a suit for land as it would relate to Allahabad property situated admittedly outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
(3.) ELABORATING his argument, Mr. Chatterjee would refer to various orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in the writ petition as also the civil suit filed at Allahabad inter-alia asking for partition of the Allahabad property that the learned Judge failed to appreciate. He prayed for setting aside of the judgement and order of His Lordship and dismissal of the applications made by the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge.;