- (1.) Heard Mr. Niladri Shekhar Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Lalit Kumar Lal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) I.A. No. 2293 of 2016 has been filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from transferring, alienating or from creating any third party interest over the property involved in this appeal. I.A. No. 10075 of 2019 has been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of suit property. I.A. No. 2293 of 2016 was heard on 27.09.2019. As on that day, learned counsel appearing for the respondents took time to file reply to the I.A., the matter was adjourned for filing counter affidavit and was directed to be listed on 23.10.2019 and till then, status quo of the disputed land was directed to be maintained. The respondents have filed counter affidavit and the appellants have filed I.A. No. 10075 of 2019 and that is how two I.As. have been placed today before the Bench.
(3.) Mr. Mukherjee at the first instance argued on both the I.As. and submits that the suit property is in the possession of the appellants and they have been forcefully dispossessed and the respondents are making some construction on the suit property. He referred to some photographs which have been annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants. He further submits that since this Second Appeal has already been admitted on substantial question of law, to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, status quo may be made absolute till the disposal of the Second Appeal. He also submits that the appellants purchased the suit land by a sale deed dated 12.01.1982 from the recorded raiyats Nagarmal Poddar and Jibraj Poddar, which was consented by another brother Amlok Chand Poddar and thereafter the plaintiffs acquired right, title and interest and obtained possession of the properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint. He further argues that the appellants have sold 41 decimals of land to others and after the said sale the plaintiffs are in possession of 29 decimals of land. He further submits that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, which are prime factor in granting the injunction are in favour of the appellants and that is why this Court may extend status quo order which has been granted by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2019. He relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Kumar & Anr. v. Prahlad Singh & Ors . reported in 1992 (1) Current Civil Cases 73 (SC) and by way of referring paragraph 4 of the judgment submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under Order 39 Rule 1(c) which provides that temporary injunction may be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise that there is appreciation of dispossession of the party, who is in possession of the suit land.;