Ex Parte Injunction Stands If Plaint Discloses Cause Of Action: Calcutta HC
Copy Link
Share
Save
In a vital clarification on interim relief standards in property disputes, the Calcutta High Court held that at the ex parte ad interim stage, trial courts must treat plaint averments as sacrosanct without conducting a mini-trial to grant injunctions.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De affirmed an ex parte ad interim injunction order restraining the appellant from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession and altering the suit driveway. The court found that the trial judge rightly evaluated the foundational elements based on sworn pleadings, photographic evidence, and title deeds.
Key Takeaways
Plaint Averments Sacrosanct: Courts must rely on sworn statements in the plaint and interim applications at the ex parte stage rather than demanding exhaustive proof.
No Mini-Trials At Ad Interim Stage: Appellate courts will not interfere with interim injunctions unless the trial court's order is manifestly perverse or unreasoned.
Deed Incorporation Binds Successors: Broad habendum clauses incorporating prior agreements transfer appurtenant rights over common areas and driveways to subsequent purchasers.
Court Observations and Rationale
The High Court systematically analyzed the chain of conveyance deeds, observing that the agreement for sale had been incorporated by reference into the title deeds, conferring common rights over passageways and driveways to the plaintiffs. The court underscored that appellate courts must exercise restraint while reviewing orders under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, adhering to established precedents such as Union of India representing South Eastern Railway v. Amarendra Nath Sarkara ( "AIR 1967 Cal 119": 1966 CaseBase(CAL) 69), Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited and others v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited ( "(2025) 1 SCC 741": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 262), and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi and others ( "(2024) 11 SCC 351": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 763).
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well-settled that at the ex parte ad interim stage, the plaint averments have to be taken as sacrosanct and if the same disclose sufficient cause of action for injunction, it is to be granted... It is trite law that at the stage of grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, the trial court has to be satisfied only on the foundational ingredients for grant of injunction having been made out, and not hold a mini trial."
The Court has following directions:
"F.M.A. No. 813 of 2026 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the impugned order, bearing Order No. 2 dated May 16, 2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ninth Court at Alipore, District – South 24 Parganas, in Title Suit No. 698 of 2026. Accordingly, F.M.A. No. 872 of 2026, preferred against orders extending the initial ex parte ad interim order, which we have already affirmed, is also dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the orders dated June 8, 2026 and June 16, 2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ninth Court at Alipore, District – South 24 Parganas, in Title Suit No. 698 of 2026."
Ratio
At the stage of considering an ex parte ad interim injunction, the court is required only to satisfy itself that the foundational ingredients for injunctive relief are established on the face of the plaint averments and supporting documents, without embarking on a mini-trial or detailed evaluation of disputed evidence.
Background
The dispute pertained to a suit filed by flat owners (respondent nos. 1 and 2) seeking a declaration of undivided share and perpetual injunction regarding a common driveway and central lawn in the 'Fort Oasis' project situated at Panditiya Road, Kolkata. The trial court granted an ex parte ad interim order of injunction restraining the appellant from altering the boundary or disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.
The appellant challenged the injunction arguing that the suit driveway was not explicitly conveyed in the plaintiffs' deed, the underlying agreement was not produced, and the trial court's order was unreasoned, relying on Union of India representing South Eastern Railway v. Amarendra Nath Sarkara ( "AIR 1967 Cal 119": 1966 CaseBase(CAL) 69) to contend that operative clauses prevail over recitals. Rejecting these contentions, the High Court held that the habendum clause was framed in the widest import to include appurtenant common rights, and affirmed the lower court's order.
Case Details:
Case No.: F.M.A. No. 813 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026 With F.M.A. No. 872 of 2026 + CAN 1 of 2026
Case Title: Analytical Management Consultants v. Parikshit Agarwal and others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sunil Gupta, Ms. Pallavi Chatterjee, Advs.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Krishna Raj Thaker, Sr. Adv., Mr. Zeeshan Haque, Ms. Srijani Mukherjee, Advs.
Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 2325
Similar Articles
Breaking News
