- (1.) HEARD the learned advocates for the respective parties.
(2.) THE facts of the case, very, briefly, are that the opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 133 of 2003 against the petitioner and the proforma opposite party praying inter alia for a declaration that a certain deed of lease is void, inoperative, fraudulent, collusive and forged and that the compensation awarded in respect of the property included in the said deed of lease should be awarded entirely in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite parties and that the defendant/petitioner has no right to claim any share in the said compensation amount. The plaintiffs/opposite parties also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant/petitioner from receiving any part of the aforesaid compensation amount which has since been deposited in the Court of the learned District Judge, Suri in connection with the pending LA Case no. 89 of 2001. The sum and substance of the allegations made in the plaint was that the purported deed of lease obtained in favour of the defendant/petitioner in respect of a certain debuttar property belonging to the opposite parties is vitiated by fraud, forgery and interpolation. According to the plaintiffs/opposite parties their power-of-attorney-holder, namely, Dulal Chandra Roy, who was a trusted employee of the sebaits of the deity concerned was instrumental in the perpetration of such fraud, forgery interpolation of the deed of lease in question. The opposite parties filed an application for injunction in the said suit for restraining the petitioner from withdrawing the compensation amount which has been deposited in the Court of the learned District Judge, suri as mentioned in the plaint. The said application was contested by the defendant/petitioner and the learned Trial Court by order dated 05. 12. 2005 rejected the said application for temporary injunction.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order dated 05. 12. 2005 the plaintiffs/opposite parties preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2005. By order dated 26. 04. 2006 the learned lower Appellate Court allowed the said Misc. appeal and directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the compensation amount in relation to 'kha' schedule property till the disposal of the suit.;