Jyotirmay Bhattacharya,J. - (1.) This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 165 dated 31st January, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Serampore in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2013 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.
(2.) After the appeal was admitted for hearing under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we directed the appellant to serve copy of the application for stay upon the respondents. Pursuant to such direction passed by us on 8th September, 2015, notices were served upon all the respondents excepting the respondent no.2, who could not be served till date. Be that as it may, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are necessary parties so far as the appeal is concerned. The respondent no.3 is a partnership firm of which the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are partners. The respondent nos. 1 and 3 have entered their appearance through their counsel Mr. Asit Kumar Bhattacharya. Pursuant to a direction passed by us on 15th October, 2015, the respondent no.1 is personally present in Court today. He is represented by Mr. Bhattacharya.
(3.) Let us now consider as to how the problem which has cropped up arising out of implementation of the order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge can be resolved in the present proceeding. The present proceeding arises out of an order passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting the plaintiffs application under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the appellants application under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding, inter alia, that violation of the order of temporary injunction which was made by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 was not intentional as they handed over the possession of two flats to their proposed purchasers in terms of the execution decree passed by A.R.C.S. Hooghly.;