- (1.) By the impugned order, the plaintiff's application for ad interim injunction was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Hence the instant appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. After reading the plaint as well as the injunction application, we are unable to ascertain as to how Ishwar Chandra Maity became the co-owner in the suit property when it is alleged by the plaintiff that the "Ka" schedule property belonged to Parameshwar Maity and his brother Nagendranath Maity in equal share. No document has been submitted along with the plaint to show that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff or the plaintiff was and/or is the co-owner in the suit property.
(2.) In the absence of the prima facie proof of title of the plaintiff and/or his predecessor-in-interest, we do not find any justification to entertain this appeal.
(3.) Hence we decline to admit this appeal under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal thus stands dismissed. Re: CAN 752 of 2015 (Stay) Since we have not admitted the appeal under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no further order need be passed on the interim application for stay. The said application being CAN 752 of 2015 is thus deemed to be disposed of.;