Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 13 dated 13th January, 2017 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Title Suit No. 125 of 2016. By the impugned order, the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction was rejected with cost of Rs.2000/-. The plaintiffs felt aggrieved. Hence, the plaintiffs have come before this Court with this appeal.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We have considered the merit of this appeal also. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the appellants fairly concedes before this Court that the fate of the earlier suit between the same parties was not disclosed by the plaintiffs/appellants in the plaint of the present suit as well as in the injunction application. The earlier suit being Title Suit No. 66 of 2003 was decreed by the learned Trial Judge. A decree for permanent injunction was passed by the learned Trial Judge for restraining the plaintiffs herein, who were impleaded as defendants in the said suit, from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs therein. The said decree still operates in the field. As such, the interim injunction which was sought for by the plaintiffs/appellants herein in the present suit cannot be allowed.
(3.) In our view, the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality in rejecting the plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction. We agree with the ultimate conclusion which was drawn by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned order. However, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants fairly concedes before this Court that the material facts relating to the fate of the earlier suit was not disclosed. However, since he claims that such non-disclosure was due to bonafide mistake on the part of the appellants, this Court relieves the plaintiffs/appellants from payment of the cost amount.;