SITA RANI DINDA Vs. SANTOSH ROY & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff/respondent lodged a caveat through his learned advocate Mr. Subir Sabud. In spite of service of notice upon the said learned advocate, the said plaintiff/respondent remains unrepresented today. Under such circumstances, we have taken up this appeal for hearing ex parte against the plaintiff/respondent.

(2.) This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 14 dated 20th February, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tamluk in Title Suit No. 126 of 2016 by which the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 were directed to maintain status quo with respect to nature and character of the "kha" schedule land as it stands on that day of passing the order by not raising/proceeding with any construction on any portion thereof or otherwise till disposal of the suit.

(3.) The legality and/or correctness of the said order is under challenge at the instance of the defendant no.1/ appellant.