- (1.) This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 26 dated 13th August, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Asansol in Title Suit No. 08 of 2001 at the instance of the defendant nos. 1 and 2/appellants. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether this appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not.
(2.) In a suit for declaration of title and for injunction, the plaintiff filed an application for interim injunction for restraining the defendants from disturbing its possession in the suit property. The learned Trial Judge disposed of the plaintiff's said application for temporary injunction by directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards their possession in the suit property till the disposal of the suit.
(3.) The defendants filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the said interim order of injunction. The learned Trial Judge rejected the defendants' said application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the impugned order. The legality of the said impugned order is under challenge in this appeal before us. Having regard to the fact that the learned court below found that the plaintiff has 1/4th share in the suit property and the defendant no.1 is also a cosharer therein, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge did not commit any mistake by passing an order of status quo in the facts of the present case. We, thus, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.;