ANIL KUMAR Vs. SUBHAS KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the order No.54 Dt. May 12, 1983 passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1663 of 1981. By the aforesaid order, the application made by the plaintiffs-respondents for temporary injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession in respect of 4 rooms with annexed covered verandahs appertaining to Premises No. 5A, Brindaban Mullick Lane and comprised in Lot 'C' of the plan annexed with the said application for temporary injunction was allowed by the learned Judge. It may be noted that the plaintiffs-respondents instituted the said Title Suit No. 1663 of 1981 for a declaration to the following effect:-

(2.) A prayer for temporary injunction was made in the plaint and a separate application was made under O.39, Rr.1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction inter alia, praying for a Rule calling upon the opposite parties 1 to 7 to show cause as to why they will not be restrained by an injunction from obstructing, disturbing or interfering with the petitioners' present possession in 4 rooms with annexed covered verandahs under their exclusive use and occupation and their right to common use with opposite party 1 in respect of entrance door and passage, courtyard and the drinking tap water in part of the premises No.5 A, Brindaban Mullick Lane fallen in Lots B and C by execution of the decree passed in O.S. 2590 of 1956 or otherwise till the hearing of the present suit.

(3.) It appears that the learned Judge by order No.3 dated 28-8-81 granted an ex parte interim order on the said application restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in any manner till the disposal of the application. The said application was thereafter contested by the defendant 1 and he also filed an affidavit-in-opposition which has been incorporated in the paper book in this appeal. It also appears that the defendant 1 has also filed a written statement in the said suit. It may be noted in this connection that respondents 15 to 18 instituted a suit being Suit No. 2590 of 1956 in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court inter alia praying for a declaration and for injunction directing the defendants to give effect to certain partition scheme or alternatively for partition of the joint properties by metes and bounds in respect of premises No. 5A, Brindaban Mullick Lane, 33A, Badur Bagan Street, and 18/2, Vidyasagar Street within the city of Calcutta. On 23-2-1965, a compromise decree was passed in the said partition suit and it appears that in terms of the said decree, premises No. 18/2, Vidyasagar Street was allotted exclusively to respondents 15 to 18 and 5 A, Brindaban Mullick Lane and 33A, Badur Bagan Street which are adjoining houses were divided into three Lots 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Lot 'A' was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 1 to 8 namely one Sudhir Kumar Sinha and Lot 'B' was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 9 to 14 and Lot 'C' was allotted exclusively to the defendant 1 who is the appellant in this appeal.