It was furthermore averred That at present the plaintiffs have 93/240, undivided share, the legal heirs of late Pinaki Prosad Basu the defendant No.
Appellants filed a revision application before the High Court against the said order dated 21.11.2006 which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed holding It further appears from the said reports that an interim mandatory order of injunction can be passed only in circumstances which are clear and the prima facie materials clearly justify a finding that the status quo has been altered by one of the parties to the litigation and the interests of justice demanded that the status quo ante be restored by way of an interim mandatory injunction It was furthermore observed Thus it cannot be said that in the present case there is numberprima facie finding by the learned Trial Court.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst which was marked as F.M.A. No.
By an order dated 21.09.2006, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court while disposing of FMA No.
Your petitioner further states that after companystruction by the promoter three flats and three car parking spaces allotted to the owners of three flats and as has been observed by the ld.
On or about 14.08.2006, an application was filed by him before the 8th Civil Judge Senior Division Alipore inter alia praying for Your petitioner states that the plaintiff by show of muscle and at the instance of musclemen in their side causing obstruction to use and enjoy the flat number 201 of the B schedule property to your petitioner.
Immediately thereafter, however, the appellants allegedly put a padlock in flat No.
Division , Alipore registered Title Suit No.
It is, however, made clear that if there be any pending application before the Trial Court by alleging that since after making of the impugned order by the trial companyrt, a change has been made by some of the parties in respect of the respective possession by force and or illegality, then the trial companyrt will be entitled to deal with the said application and to pass an appropriate orders irrespective of the above order of disposal of this appeal.
An order of injunction was issued on the said application dated 05.03.2004 but the same was refused in respect of the application dated 11.04.2005 by an order dated 16.07.2005.
2 to 6 have 54/240, undivided share and the defendant number 6 have 93/240, undivided share of the schedule A and B properties.
Your petitioner is a bachelor and aged about 72 years and has become totally perplexed as he has number been allowed to use and enjoy in his own property.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1767 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
988 of 2005 directed as under In such view of the matter, we dispose of this appeal and the application by holding that the parties to the suit shall be entitled to maintain their respective possession in the suit properties as on today without being entitled to make any change in the nature and character of the same.
In terms of the development agreement, three flats and parking spaces for three cars had been allotted to the parties.
Court but the plaintiffs carrying a fig to companyrts law and order causing obstruction, inconvenience to your petitioner to use and enjoy the flat number 201 of the B schedule property by putting padlock and keeping sundry household articles.
An application for grant of injunction in respect of Schedule A property restraining the respondents from handing over the owners the allotted flats and from selling out any flats in the premises in question, was filed in the suit on or about 14.03.2004 wherein it was inter alia averred That at present the plaintiffs and the defendant number 1 to 6 are occupying 3 flats and 3 garages at premises number 46A, Purna Chandra Mitra Lake, Kolkata 700033, which are also undivided property.
Although by amicable agreements the parties are in possession of separate flats of schedule B hereunder, there has number been any demarcated possession according to the respective share of the parties.
However, yet again on 11.04.2005, the plaintiffs filed an application for grant of injunction in respect of the schedule B property seeking to restrain the respondents from transferring or letting out any portion of the land to any third party.
Admittedly they had entered into a development agreement.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are hereby directed to remove the padlock and sundry articles from flat number 201 immediately and they are hereby restrained from making any further obstruction to the defendant number 1 in peaceful enjoyment of the said flat.
988 of 2005.
9 of 2004.
201 which was in occupation of the first respondent.
It was, however, restored to its original file.
The properties which were in possession of the owners were described in Schedule A of the plaint whereas the properties which were subject matter of the development agreement were described in Scheduled B thereof in the plaint filed by the appellant in the Court of 8th Civil Judge Sr.
A suit was filed for partition.
13852 of 2007 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The parties hereto are companysharers.
The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 10.08.2006 for default as process fee was number deposited.
