Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.) Unsuccessful plaintiff in Title Suit No. 81 of 1996 pending before the learned Munsiff, 4th Court, Alipore on an application for an injunction has assailed the order of the learned Assistant District Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 186 of 1996 upholding the order of refusal of injunction.
(2.) Brief facts leading to the present revisional application are as follows : Petitioner has filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction inter alia prayed for ex-parte injunction. But the learned trial Court refused to issue ex-parte and interim injunction rather directed the petitioner to take notice upon the defendant/respondent and thereafter to hear the application for injunction. Being affected with and dissatisfied by the judgment of such refusal of injunction, he preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Alipore, which was eventually transferred to Assistant District Judge, 3rd Court. Alipore who dismissed the appeal affirming the order of refusal on 25th November, 1991. The petitioner submitted a proposal to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 expressing his desire to construct a multistoried building on the suit premises. In the said letter he indicated the number of other projects, he had undertaken. On 5th February, 1992 he sent another letter expressing his desire about proposed terms and conditions in case the respondent agreed to entrust their land to the petitioner. On 9th March, 1992 one of the respondents namely S.K. Ganguly replied to the petitioner that Shri A. K. Ganguly would communicate him in writing about the project and it has been stated, inter alia, that if the plaintiff/petitioner so desired, he could purchase individual share of other co-sharers. After some correspondence being made between petitioner and the opposite parties a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived at whereby the respondent No. 1 undertook the responsibility to obtain the written consent of other co-sharers.
(3.) At the time of execution of Memorandum of Understanding the petitioner has paid Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) pursuant to an Account Payee Cheque No. 570491 dated December 14, 1994 and post dated Cheque was also given to the plaintiff being No. 029241 and 029647 dated 15th March, 1995 for Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) and Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) respectively but the aforesaid amount on the post dated cheques had not been withdrawn as yet. The opposite parties did not come forward to execute the agreement in terms of Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, the petitioner was obliged to file the suit for specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction. The learned trial Court as well as appellate Court were reluctant to grant ex-parte ad interim injunction.;