JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) THIS first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order of refusal to grant ad -interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, by the Learned Trial Judge. The legality and/or propriety of the said order is under challenge in this first miscellaneous appeal at the instance of the plaintiffs/appellants. After hearing the learned advocate of the appellants and after considering the materials on record including the order impugned, we feel that this is a fit case for admission. Accordingly, we admit this appeal.
(2.) SINCE this first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order of the Learned Trial Judge refusing to grant ad -interim order of injunction, we, while considering the appellants' application for interim injunction filed in connection with this appeal, thought it fit to dispose of the appeal itself on the basis of the materials before us. The learned advocates appearing for the parties have also requested us to dispose of the appeal itself instead of keeping it pending here. Accordingly, we have considered the merit of the appeal in the facts of the present case.
(3.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction for restraining the respondent/opposite party, his men, agents, servants and associates from making any type of construction over the suit property and/or from fixing any iron gate and/or flexible gate and/or shutter gate on the front side of the suit property and/or also from transferring and/or parting with possession of the suit property to any third party in any manner whatsoever and from changing the nature, character and possession of the suit property in any manner whatsoever. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction claiming identical interim relief during the pendency of the suit and ad -interim injunction of similar nature was also prayed for by the plaintiffs till the disposal of the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. The plaintiffs claim their absolute title in respect of the suit property. They described the defendant/respondent as trespassers in the suit property. The document which was produced along with the injunction application viz. the property tax bill of Kolkata Municipal Corporation, shows that the plaintiffs' names were recorded as owners of the suit property. Since the defendant were trying to make some alteration in the suit premises causing damage to the suit premises, the plaintiffs have filed the said suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs. Certain photographs were also annexed to the injunction application showing that part of the suit property has been demolished and some renovation is being carried on within the suit property. Considering the pleadings of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint as well as in the application for temporary injunction, we are of the view that an arguable case has been made out by the plaintiffs in the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is also in favour of granting ad -interim order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs as it is the settled principle of law that status quo as on the date of filing such application should be maintained till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction.;