The Trial Court Refused An Injunction. The Appeal Court Granted A Wide One.
A dispute over a plot and the common passage reaching it from a national highway has produced a detailed restraint order — and a one-year deadline for the suit.
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's order. The defendants are restrained from changing the nature and character of the suit property, from further construction, from alienating, transferring, encumbering or creating third-party interest, and from restricting free ingress and egress through the common passage from the national highway — until the suit is decided. The trial court was asked to dispose of it within a year.
- Access was protected as well as the plot — the common passage from the highway is expressly covered.
- Nuisance, obstruction and parking on that passage are all restrained by name.
- The interim order was confirmed and modified, not merely continued.
- A suit of 2019, which is why the Court asked for disposal within a year without unnecessary adjournments.
- Court
- High Court at Calcutta
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SANDIP KUMAR DE
- Citation
- F.M.A. No. 916 of 2025
- Case
- F.M.A. No. 916 of 2025
- Decided
- September 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; injunction granted and expeditious trial directed
What was restrained
The defendants are restrained from changing the nature and character of the suit property and from making any further construction on it.
They are restrained from alienating, transferring, encumbering or creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
They are restrained from restricting free ingress and egress through the common passage from the national highway to the suit property and to the plaintiff's own plots, and from creating any nuisance or obstruction or parking vehicles on that passage — all until the suit is disposed of.
And what was directed about the suit
The judgment and order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) was set aside and the appeal allowed on contest.
The interim order granted earlier was confirmed and modified to the extent indicated.
The suit being of 2019, the Court requested the trial court to hear and dispose of it expeditiously, preferably within one year of the judgment, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can an injunction protect a right of way as well as the land?
Yes. This order restrains any restriction of free ingress and egress through the common passage.
How long will the suit take?
The Court asked for disposal preferably within one year, without unnecessary adjournments.
Framing an injunction that actually protects the property
- Ask for access as a separate limb; protecting the plot is useless if the passage to it can be blocked.
- Name the specific acts — construction, alienation, encumbrance, third-party interest — rather than seeking a general restraint.
- Include nuisance, obstruction and parking where a passage is involved; these are how access is lost in practice.
- Ask for a time-bound trial in the same order, especially in an old suit.
Source. High Court at Calcutta, F.M.A. No. 916 of 2025, decided September 2026 by Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, Justice HON'BLE JUSTICE SANDIP KUMAR DE. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court at Calcutta and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in