Status Quo Order Cannot Extend Beyond the Scope of Plaintiff's Actual Claim: Calcutta High Court Rules in Sri Milon Roy Chowdhury vs Ashis Kumar Saha & Ors.

Background and Context

The Calcutta High Court recently delivered a significant ruling on the principles governing temporary injunctions, particularly addressing whether a status quo order can lawfully cover an entire property when the plaintiff's enforceable claim is confined to only a fraction of it. The judgment arose from an appeal filed by an added defendant challenging an interim order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah, in Title Suit No. 60 of 2014.

The dispute centered on a property situated at 27/57, B.K. Paul Temple Road, Howrah, measuring approximately 9 cottahs. The trial court had directed all parties to maintain status quo over the entire property during the pendency of a suit filed for declaration, specific performance of contract, and permanent injunction. The appellant, who had been impleaded as defendant no. 6, challenged this order on the ground that it was excessive and caused disproportionate hardship given the limited nature of the plaintiff's surviving claim.

Facts of the Case

The Original Agreements and the Suit

The respondent no. 1, together with one Bijan Basu, had originally instituted the suit alleging that two separate agreements for sale were executed on September 11, 2013 — one with Jayanti Bala (since deceased) concerning Schedule 'A'(1) property, and another with Jayanti Bala Chatterjee, Dilip Chatterjee, and Anjan Chatterjee concerning Schedule 'A'(2) property. The two scheduled properties together comprised approximately 2 cottahs and 21 chittaks of land.

The plaintiffs alleged that the vendors refused to execute the sale deeds and ultimately returned two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each. It was further alleged that the original owners had executed gift deeds in favour of certain family members and eventually transferred the entire property to defendant no. 5, Kishan Kumar Bidasaria, without honouring the agreements. The plaintiffs claimed they were always ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations and sought specific performance, along with a declaration that the subsequent transfers were illegal and inoperative.

Entry of the Appellant

The appellant, Sri Milon Roy Chowdhury, was added as defendant no. 6 by an order dated December 23, 2014. He had purchased the suit property through two separate registered sale deeds dated August 17, 2014 and August 24, 2014 from defendant no. 5. He asserted continuous possession since the date of purchase, claimed to have constructed a multi-storied building on the property, and had already transferred certain newly constructed flats to third-party purchasers.

Withdrawal of Co-Plaintiff and Changed Circumstances

A pivotal development in the case was the withdrawal of Bijan Basu, who had been plaintiff no. 2. By an order dated March 25, 2015, the trial court allowed his application to strike off his name from the cause title of the suit. Consequently, the respondent no. 1 became the sole surviving plaintiff. This change was critical because, upon withdrawal of the co-plaintiff, the respondent's claim was effectively reduced to approximately 1 cottah and 10 chittaks of land — barely a fraction of the entire 9-cottah property over which the trial court had subsequently directed status quo.

Despite this material change in circumstances, the trial court, by its order dated April 25, 2018, directed status quo over the entire 9 cottahs — a direction that, as the High Court would later find, failed to account for the altered factual matrix.

Arguments Advanced by the Parties

Appellant's Contentions

Senior Advocate Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury, appearing for the appellant, submitted the following: