ZIAUL HAQUE Vs. NARUL ISLAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is at the instance of the Defendant/Respondent and is directed against the order No. 9 dated February 4, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Seventh Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 625 of 2010 thereby directing for demolition of the boundary wall alleged to have been constructed by the Defendant/Respondent/Petitioner herein.

(2.) The short fact is that the Plaintiffs /Appellants/opposite parties instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 106 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore against the Petitioner praying for pre -emption under the Mohammedan Law, injunction and other reliefs. The Petitioner is contesting the said application. At the time of filing of the said suit by the Plaintiffs, they filed an application for temporary injunction and the learned Trial Judge did not grant any ad interim injunction as prayed for. The Plaintiffs / opposite party filed a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 625 of 2010 before the learned District Judge and at that time, they moved an application for ad interim injunction. The learned District Judge granted ad interim order of injunction and thereafter the said misc. appeal was transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Seventh Court, Alipore. The Plaintiffs contended that in spite of order of injunction passed by the learned District Judge, the Defendant/Petitioner in violation of the said order, demolished the construction of the Plaintiffs' boundary wall, structures of the Plaintiff, etc. and they raised a new boundary wall. For that reason, the Plaintiffs filed an application for violation of the order of injunction under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and that misc. case is now pending. They filed another application under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoring possession after dismantling the said wall, if required. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred. dismantling wall constructed by the Defendant/Petitioner. That application was allowed. It has also been directed that the Petitioners are at liberty to see police assistance for

(3.) Now, the question is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in passing the impugned order.