Mixed Questions of Fact and Law Preclude Pre-Trial Limitation Dismissal: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has fortified the protection of tenancy rights by ruling that questions of limitation and commercial jurisdiction involving complex factual matrices cannot be summarily decided at the ad interim stage to deny injunctive relief. This judgment establishes that a continuing threat to possession constitutes a fresh cause of action, preventing the mechanical application of limitation periods to bar urgent protective orders.

A division bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Sandip Kumar De adjudicated upon an appeal challenging an ad interim status quo order. The appellant contended that the suit was barred by the Limitation Act, 1963 and fell under the specialized jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking to set aside the trial court's intervention.

Key Takeaways

Pleadings as Sacrosanct at Interim Stage

For the purpose of ad interim injunctions, the court must treat the averments in the plaint and the injunction application as sacrosanct to determine if a prima facie case exists.

Limitation as a Mixed Question

When a plaint alleges a continuing cause of action and specific recent threats to possession, the issue of limitation becomes a mixed question of fact and law that must be decided during trial, not at the threshold.

Godown User and Commercial Disputes

Simply naming a company as a 'Sales' entity or using a premises as a 'godown' does not automatically trigger the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; a proximate nexus with active trade or commerce must be established through evidence.

Scope of Injunctive Relief

Courts cannot grant reliefs beyond what is prayed for; an injunction protecting 'possession' cannot be unilaterally extended by the court to cover the 'nature and character' of the property if not requested.

Court Observations on Limitation and Continuing Cause of Action

The appellant argued that the suit was filed beyond three years from the initial cause of action, citing Article 14 (likely referring to the general residency of Article 58/113) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and relying on Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Limited v. Manbasa Devei and Others. However, the Court observed that the cause of action is a 'bundle of facts' and cannot be restricted to a single historical date.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Hence, on a comprehensive reading of the plaint, we find that the first real and immediate threat to the possession and the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the property came on September 2, 2026, which is well within the limitation period, since the suit was filed on the very next date... In Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the plaint, the present continuous tense has been used to allege the threat to the possession and rights of the plaintiff, thus implying that there was a continuing cause of action at the juncture when the suit was filed."

Distinguishing the precedent in Calcutta Landing & Shipping Co. Limited v. Manbasa Devei and Others, the bench noted that specific dates of recent threats were provided, making the prior ruling inapplicable at this stage.

Jurisdictional Thresholds under the Commercial Courts Act

The appellant further contended that the suit, involving a godown in a prime locality, exceeded the 'specified value' and was commercial under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court clarified that while 'specified value' under Section 12 is agnostic of court fees, the primary test is whether the dispute is 'commercial' in nature.

The Court held: "Per se, the user of the suit premises for the purpose of godown does not indicate beyond reasonable doubt that the said user has proximate nexus with any trade or commerce. At this stage, thus, it would be premature to hold that the suit involves a commercial dispute within the contemplation of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the CC Act."

Ratio

An ad interim injunction cannot be refused on the grounds of limitation or lack of commercial jurisdiction if the pleadings, read as a whole, suggest a continuing cause of action and the commercial nature of the property user is not ex-facie evident. Furthermore, a court lacks the jurisdiction to grant an injunction regarding the 'nature and character' of a property when the prayer is strictly limited to the protection of 'possession'.

Background

The dispute originated from a suit filed by Rajaniklal Sales Pvt. Ltd. seeking a declaration of its status as a monthly tenant at a Park Street property. The plaintiff alleged that despite paying rent to the heirs of the original landlady, the defendants were now threatening forcible dispossession. The Trial Judge had directed both parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature, character, and possession of the premises.

The High Court found that while the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for possession, the Trial Court erred in extending the injunction to the 'nature and character' of the property and imposing it on the plaintiff without a counter-prayer. Consequently, the High Court modified the order to protect only the plaintiff's possession.

The Court has the following directions:

"F.M.A.T. No.408 of 2026 is partially allowed, thereby modifying the impugned order... to the extent that the defendants, including the present appellant as well as present respondent nos.2 to 5, shall now remain restrained by an order of injunction from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 in respect of the suit property in any manner whatsoever till disposal of the temporary injunction application in the Trial Court. However, insofar as the imposition of status quo on the plaintiff and the status quo in respect of nature and character of the suit premises, in respect of both the plaintiff and the defendants, are concerned, the said portions of the impugned order stand set aside."

Case Details:
Case No.: F.M.A.T. No.408 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:1881-DB
Case Title: Rajashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. -Versus- Rajaniklal Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anirban Roy, Mr. Debjit Basu, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jyoti Singh, Mr. Parikshit Lakhotia, Mr. Anirban Saha, Advocates

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 2960