Prasenjit Mandal, J.@mdashThis application is at the instance of the Plaintiff and is directed against the order dated November 22, 2010 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge, Diamond Harbour, South 24-Pargans in Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2010 arising out of Title Suit No. 87 of
2010 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakdwip, South 24-Pargans.
2. The short fact is that the Plaintiff/Petitioner herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 87 of 2010 for declaration of title, injunction and other
relief''s against the Defendants / opposite parties herein. In that suit, the Plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. That application was
moved on June 15, 2010 and the learned Trial Judge issued a notice of show cause upon the opposite parties but refused to grant an ad interim
order of injunction. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff filed a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 2010 which was allowed on contest by the
impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Plaintiff has preferred this revisional application.
3. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the Plaintiff has prayed for declaration
of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit property and other relief''s. The Defendant is contesting the said suit. While relying the
material allegations made in the plaint, the Plaintiff has not only prayed for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit
property, but, at the same time, he has prayed for passing temporary injunction so that the Defendants may not raise any objection or resist the
construction to be made by the Plaintiff on the suit land. From the materials filed by the Plaintiff, it appears that the Plaintiff has made out a prima
facie case to go for trial but if the temporary injunction as sought for, is granted, the effect will be that the Plaintiff will be permitted to raise
construction on the suit land and the Defendants will be debarred from raising any obstruction or resist the construction. If the Plaintiff is allowed to
raise the construction, the effect will be the change of the nature and character of the suit property. When a suit of this nature is filed, the object of
granting temporary injunction is to keep the property in status quo position till the disposal of the suit.
4. The misc. appeal has arisen out of the order of refusal of the prayer for ad interim injunction. So, at this stage, there is no scope of consideration
of the defence version. So, in such a situation, the property in suit should be kept in status quo. Otherwise, it is the Defendants who are to suffer
irreparable loss if the construction is raised by the Plaintiff.
5. I am, therefore, of the view that till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction, parties should be directed to maintain status quo of
the suit property. The learned Lower Appellate Court has, therefore, rightly allowed the misc. appeal.
6. Therefore, the revisional application is disposed of. Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it stands today till the disposal of
application for temporary injunction. The learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the application for temporary injunction within a period of
two months from the date of communication of the order to him.
7. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
8. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.
