Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 03.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Appeal No. FMA 916 of 2025 (with CAN 2 of 2020, CAN 3 of 2021, CAN 4 of 2026) filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the judgment dated 03.10.2019 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.187 of 2019, concerning an application under Order 39 Rules 1‑2 read with Section 151 CPC for a temporary injunction.
  • Plaintiff purchased multiple plots from defendants Nos. 6‑26 (the “Pal family”) to develop an industrial park. An oral agreement dated 07‑05‑2013 with defendant No. 1 (Debasish Pal) required the plaintiff to receive 3.8680 acres for Rs 6,88,22,217 and, in return, the plaintiff would convey 65.640 decimals of land for Rs 1.24 crore and later receive additional parcels valued at Rs 1.46 crore and Rs 3,36,88,554.
  • The plaintiff executed its reciprocal obligations by registering a deed of conveyance for 65.640 decimals on 01‑11‑2015. Defendant No. 1 delayed execution of the remaining 151.46 decimals, despite plaintiff’s letters dated 23‑09‑2016, 15‑02‑2017 and 02‑11‑2017.
  • Plaintiff sought specific performance for transfer of the suit property (consideration Rs 3,36,88,544), alternatively damages of Rs 127 crore, and a permanent injunction restraining defendants from altering the property, obstructing ingress/egress via the common passage to NH‑6, creating nuisance, or alienating the land.
  • The trial court rejected the temporary injunction; the plaintiff appealed.
  • Counsel for the plaintiff argued the oral agreement, part‑performance, and the deeds demonstrated a binding contract and a prima‑facie case for injunction. Counsel for the defendant denied the existence of any oral agreement, contended the price was market‑based, and argued the suit was a commercial dispute unsuitable for a civil court.
  • The High Court examined the definition of “commercial dispute” under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and concluded the suit did not fall within that definition because the land was not used exclusively for trade or commerce.
  • The Court found the trial judge’s observations on stamp duty, lack of documentary evidence of the oral agreement, and the exclusion of the common passage from the suit property to be erroneous.
  • The Court also held that the alternative prayer for damages does not bar the grant of a temporary injunction.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is allowed on contest; the judgment and order dated 03‑10‑2019 are set aside.
  • Defendants No. 1 and No. 2 (and their agents) are restrained from changing the nature or character of the suit property, constructing on it, alienating, transferring, encumbering, or creating third‑party rights, and from obstructing free ingress/egress through the common passage to NH‑6 and the plaintiff’s plots.
  • The interim injunction dated 07‑04‑2026 is confirmed and modified as above.
  • The suit (originally filed in 2019) is directed to be heard and disposed of within one year from the date of this judgment, without granting unnecessary adjournments.
  • No order as to costs.
  • CAN 2 of 2020, CAN 3 of 2021 and CAN 4 of 2026 are disposed of.
  • Parties may obtain a certified copy of the order upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Injunction, Specific Performance, Property Dispute