BAGALA PRASANNA GHOSH Vs. ISLAM MALLICK AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice of this Rule was duly served on the opposite parties but the opposite parties do not appear to oppose the Rule. This Rule arises on an application under Sec. 115 of the Code and is directed against order No. 15, dated 10th of November 1981 passed by Shri P.C. Choudhury, Munsif, 1st Court, Kandi, in Title Suit No. 134 of 1981.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, injunction and for other reliefs. After institution of the suit the plaintiff filed an application for injunction and by order No. 4, dated 2nd of September 1981 the learned Munsif granted interim order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession in respect of the disputed lands till the disposal of the application. On November 3, 1981 an application was filed by the plaintiff praying for police help so that the plaintiff may peacefully possess the property, as it was alleged, that in spite of the ad interim order of injunction the defendants were threatening to reap paddy which was grown by the plaintiff on the suit plots. The said application and the injunction matter were heard together and the learned Munsif disposed of the injunction matter and the application referred to above by his order dated 10th of November 1981. The learned Munsif found that the defendants were not in possession of the property, that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that he had a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was entitled to get an order of injunction. Relying on a decision reported in 1980(1) CHN 18 (Haradhan Chongdar -Vs - Jitendra Nath Hambir) the learned Munsif without granting injunction directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit properties as on the day of passing the order till the disposal of the suit. The petition for police help was dismissed as injunction was not granted. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the plaintiff has come up to this court.

(3.) Mr. P.B. Sahu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner places before me the order dated 10.11.81. The learned Munsif finds that the certified copy of the order dated 29.6.81 passed in C.R. No. 4851 (w) of 1981 clearly reveals that the names of the defendants were not recorded as bargadars in respect of the suit property till on that date. The learned Munsif also found.