ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J. - (1.) IN both the revisional applications being C.O. 2374 of 2015 and C.O. 2295 of 2015 the plaintiff/petitioner challenged the impugned common order dated 22nd May, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 8th Court at Alipore allowing Misc. Appeal No.325 of 2012 preferred by the defendants/opposite parties and dismissing the Misc. Appeal No.272 of 2012 preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner.
(2.) BOTH the revisional applications are taken up together since the learned Appellate Court disposed of both the appeals by a common judgement and order relating to the same property, between the same parties.
(3.) PETITIONER /plaintiff filed Title Suit No.10117 of 2011 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court at Alipore against the defendants/opposite parties praying for a decree for declaration that the petitioner/plaintiff is the owner of the suit property by virtue of registered deed of gift executed on 15th October, 2007 and also for a decree for declaration that the deeds of conveyance being deed no.4400 of 2008 dated 3rd January, 2008 and deed no.4397 of 2008 dated 2nd January, 2008 registered on 11th April, 2008 is outcome of fraud and further for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/opposite parties from in any manner alienating, transferring and/or causing encumbrance and/or from in any manner disturbing the possession, occupation and enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff or her tenant. The said application for temporary injunction was moved before the learned Trial Judge on 29th July, 2011 when the learned Trial Court was pleased to pass an ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendants/opposite parties from transferring, alienating or encumbering the suit property in any manner whatsoever and also restraining the opposite parties/defendants from disturbing possession of the plaintiff over and in respect of the suit property till 24th August, 2011. The opposite parties/defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 29th July, 2011 preferred one Misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No.363 of 2011 which was ultimately dismissed by an order dated 20th December, 2011 by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court at Alipore upon a contested hearing. Relevant portion of the learned Appellate Court 's order dated 20th December, 2011 disposing of Misc. Appeal no.363 of 2011 is quoted hereunder : - '' Now there is no dispute that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff and she was/is in possession of the said property till June, 2011 through her tenant S. Jaikishan and the said tenant paid rent to the plaintiff till June, 2011 as is apparent from documents placed before the trial court, both for the flat and garage space. Coming to the sale deeds as mentioned herein before at serial no.9, I find as many as five deeds were executed within a short span of 10 days, all in the month of January, 2008 by the plaintiff/respondent in favour of the defendant/respondent, which includes the suit property yet till 2011 June the tenant S. Jaikishan was paying rent to the plaintiff/respondent. This fact when brought to the notice of ld. trial court, the ld. trial court found a bona fide prima facie case to investigate as it was alleged that the sale deeds in respect of the suit property were all executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant under the misconception that the said deeds were deed of exchange and not deed of sale. Moreover, it is again clear from the documents mentioned in serial nos.3 and 4 placed before the trial court that the suit property was not being possessed by the defendant/appellant so balance of convenience was in favour of issuing ad interim injunction for a short period to allow the defendant/appellant to appear before the court and explain the circumstances. Finally no irreparable loss could be sustained by the defendant/appellant since till June 2011 the possession of the suit property was with the tenant S. Jaikishan and the suit was filed on 27th July, 2011 and ad interim order of injunction passed was on 29th July, 2011. On the contrary, if no ad interim injunction was passed by the ld. trial court and the property was further transferred by the appellant/defendant as is apprehended by the plaintiff/respondent and materials on record show that there were plausible reasons for such apprehension. The petition for M.P. Case under section 144(2) Cr.P.C. lodged against plaintiff by defendant as well as the letter written to the Secretary shows that the plaintiff prima facie established the cause for such apprehension of further transfer of the suit property and thus in my opinion ld. trial court was justified in granting the ad interim order of injunction to protect the suit property. As all the 3 conditions were in favour of granting of such ad interim order of injunction, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. In view of my above discussions I do not find it necessary at this stage to discuss other decisions cited by the parties, it is left open for the parties to agitate the points before the trial court at the time of contested hearing of the temporary injunction petition. Hence, it is Order That the misc. appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest. The ad interim order of injunction is extended till the disposal of the temporary injunction petition by the trial court. Let a copy of this judgement along with L.C.R. be sent down forthwith to the ld. court below. No order as to costs. '' ;