PANKAJ ROY Vs. SANGITA PATOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

(2.) This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC by which the applicants who are the appellants in the connected appeal are seeking ad-interim injunction to restrain the opposite parties from disturbing, alienating, transferring the physical possession of the plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the petition to any third party during the pendency of the connected appeal.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that T. S. 155/2017 was instituted for specific performance of contract and for execution of sale deed, confirmation of possession, recovery of khas possession, permanent injunction and other reliefs. It is submitted that despite receipt of notice, the opposite parties herein did not contest the suit or the injunction application being Misc. (J) Case No. 146/2017 and therefore, on the basis of evidence adduced by the applicants, the suit was decreed by granting alternative relief for recovery of advance consideration amount of Rs. 4,35,000/- together with interest @ 12. 5% p. a. Aggrieved by the grant of alternative decree for return of money instead of decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract, the connected appeal has been filed.