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

Order Date: 15 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant Rajashi Developers Pvt. Ltd.; Respondent No.1 Rajaniklal Sales Pvt. Ltd.; other respondents including defendant No.2 Helen Mehra and additional defendants (Nos.3‑5). Counsel for appellant: Anirban Roy, Debjit Basu; counsel for respondents: Aniruddha Chatterjee, Jyoti Singh, Parikshit Lakhotia, Anirban Saha, etc.
  • Nature of proceedings: Appeal against the trial court’s order dated 5 September 2026 (Order No.02) in Title Suit No.1993 of 2026, which granted an ad‑interim injunction directing both parties to maintain status‑quo concerning the nature, character and possession of the suit premises (Premises No.59A, Park Street, Kolkata).
  • Key allegations: Plaintiff seeks declaration that it is a bona‑fide monthly tenant of the suit premises and a permanent injunction to protect possession. Defendant argues the suit is barred by limitation, suffers non‑joinder of heirs of original landlady Mrs. J. D. Mehra, contains contradictory pleadings, falls within the commercial courts’ jurisdiction, and that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing status‑quo on the nature and character of the property.
  • Arguments presented:
  • Limitation – appellant cites Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, asserting cause of action arose on 6 Feb 2023, beyond three‑year period; plaintiff counters that the decisive threat to possession occurred on 2 Sept 2026, within limitation.
  • Non‑joinder – appellant claims heirs of Mrs. J. D. Mehra were not impleaded; plaintiff argues they are not necessary parties and Helen Mehra (defendant No.2) has already been impleaded.
  • Contradictory pleading – appellant points to Prayer (a) naming defendant No.1 instead of No.2; plaintiff contends it is a typographical error and the whole plaint consistently refers to tenancy under the heirs of Mrs. J. D. Mehra.
  • Commercial suit – appellant relies on Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the high valuation of the godown; plaintiff argues the suit’s valuation is nominal (Rs 100) and the commercial nature is not established.
  • Reliefs beyond prayer – appellant asserts the trial court’s order imposing status‑quo on the nature and character of the premises exceeds the plaintiff’s prayer; plaintiff maintains the injunction is limited to possession.
  • Court’s observations: The cause of action is a mixed question of fact and law, with the first real threat to possession arising on 2 Sept 2026, thus within limitation; non‑joinder is a curable defect and does not bar injunction; the alleged contradiction is a typographical error and can be cured; the commercial‑court jurisdiction cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage; the trial court exceeded jurisdiction by imposing status‑quo on the nature and character of the premises.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is partially allowed. The injunction is modified to restrain the defendants (including the appellant) from disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the suit property until the trial court disposes of the temporary injunction application.
  • The portions of the impugned order that imposed status‑quo on the nature and character of the suit premises are set aside.
  • Defendants must file written objections to the temporary injunction application by 30 November 2026; the trial court is directed to dispose of the matter preferably by 24 December 2026.
  • The accompanying CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Topics: Injunction, Tenancy Dispute, Civil Appeal