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

Order Date: 25 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Barjahan Ali Sk. (also styled Barjahan Sekh) filed Civil Revision C.O. No. 3351 of 2025 under Article 227, challenging Order No. 13 dated 30‑07‑2025 of the Additional District Judge, Diamond Harbour, which rejected a temporary injunction in Title Appeal No. 41 of 2024.
  • Respondents: (1) Sri Sri Radha Mohan Jew (deity’s Managing Committee) and (2) Pabitra Halder, along with other parties.
  • Background: The suit property is a brickfield originally owned by the deity’s Managing Committee. In 1993, the original lessees (Pankaj Kumar Majhi, Mahadev Bera, Basudev Bera) sub‑let the property to the petitioner for 33 years via a registered deed of assignment dated 06‑04‑1993. The petitioner renamed the brickfield from “MBP” to “JUHU BHATA”, employed about 100 workers, and paid licence fees to the assignors.
  • The 33‑year assignment expired in 2013. The petitioner sought renewal of the lease from the Managing Director of the deity but received no response. Consequently, he instituted Title Suit No. 160 of 2015 before the Civil (Junior Division) Court, seeking declaration and permanent injunction.
  • During the suit, on 26‑12‑2015, Pabitra Halder sent a letter claiming lease in his favour and on 20‑01‑2016 forcibly entered the brickfield, broke the padlock, installed a signboard “Gaur Krishna Bricks”, and damaged machinery.
  • The Trial Court (Civil Junior Division, 3rd Court, Diamond Harbour) dismissed the plaintiff’s suit on 17‑08‑2024, holding that the petitioner had no right, title, or possession at the time of filing and that the lease had lapsed under Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act.
  • The Appellate Court, hearing the appeal, rejected the petitioner’s application for a temporary injunction, finding no prima facie case, no balance of convenience, and no irreparable loss.
  • The petitioner also raised a prior revisional application (C.O. 1061 of 2019) concerning an order dated 06‑03‑2019 that allowed Respondent 2 to repair the premises. The Coordinating Bench set aside that permission, noting the plaintiff’s ownership of machinery and the impropriety of allowing repairs while a status‑quo existed.
  • Counsel for the petitioner argued that the appellate court should have granted an interim injunction to protect the machinery and cited precedents (Mira Chatterjee & Ors. v. Joydeb Chatterjee, Sabyasachi Chatterjee v. Prasad Chatterjee, etc.) asserting that an appeal against an interlocutory injunction order is not maintainable, but a revision under Article 227 is.
  • The High Court examined the cited case law, confirming that orders rejecting injunctions are not appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC, yet a civil revision under Article 227 remains maintainable.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed Civil Revision C.O. 3351 of 2025 without costs, upholding the Appellate Court’s rejection of the temporary injunction.
  • All connected applications were disposed of.
  • The interim order previously granted (if any) stands vacated.
  • The order is to be communicated to the lower court and uploaded on the High Court’s official website; certified copies may be obtained upon request.

Topics: Injunction, Lease Dispute, Civil Procedure