PRATIP KUMAR BANERJEE Vs. AMITAVA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated January 27, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fourth Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.25 of 1998.

(2.) The plaintiff/petitioner filed the Title Suit No.25 of 1998 for partition before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fourth Court, Alipore against the opposite party nos.1 to 3. At the time of filing of the suit, he filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying, inter alia, for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with or disposing of the respective shares in the suit property. That application for injunction was heard on March 2, 1998 and the learned Trial Judge directed the defendants to maintain status quo of the suit property till disposal of the application for temporary injunction. The said order of ad interim order of injunction was made absolute subsequently. The opposite party no.4 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. and that application was allowed on contest. The plaintiff amended the plaint accordingly. In course of hearing, the opposite parties sought to adduce evidence to the effect that a deed dated January 9, 2002 was executed by the opposite party no.2 in favour of Surinderjit Singh, Smt. Pavittar Kaur, Smt. Sarbojeet Kaur. The said deed was marked as exhibit B after objection. The suit proceeded accordingly and lastly the suit was fixed for delivery of judgment. At that time, the learned Civil Judge directed the plaintiff to take necessary steps for adding these three transferees as defendants to the suit by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this application.

(3.) Now the point for determination is whether the impugned order can be sustained. After hearing the learned Advocate for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that admittedly, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit for partition. In that suit, the defendant no.4 was added subsequently on the basis of his prayer under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. Both the parties adduced evidence and during the course of examination of the P.Ws., it revealed that the defendant no.2 had sold his share in the suit property to the three transferees mentioned above. Under the circumstances, the learned Trial Judge has directed the plaintiff to take necessary steps for adding them as parties. But the fact remains that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff prayed for temporary injunction and it is an admitted position that the learned Court directed the defendants to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property till disposal of the application for temporary injunction. Such an ad interim order was passed on March 2, 1998. Thereafter, such order was made absolute. So, during the subsistence of the order of status quo upon the defendants, the defendant no.2, in violation of the Courts order, had transferred his right, title and interest of three subsequent transferees by exhibit B. Therefore, it is crystal clear that in utter violation of the order of status quo, the defendant no.2 had done so. There is no material to show that the defendant no.2 had taken any permission from the Court to transfer his right, title and interest in the suit property to third parties.