The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that the grant of ad interim injunction in preemption suits hinges solely on the existence of a prima facie case, not on the resolution of complex factual or legal disputes such as limitation. This ruling provides critical clarity for practitioners seeking urgent relief in property disputes under Mohammedan Law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Matiuddin Khan, filed five separate suits for preemption of sale deeds relating to distinct portions of the same immovable property in Paschim Medinipur district. The suits were instituted under Mohammedan Law, which grants adjacent owners a preferential right to purchase property before it is transferred to outsiders. The respondents, including Sareq Khan and Asfaque Khan, were purchasers under the impugned sale deeds. The appellant claimed to be an adjacent owner with a legal right of preemption.
Key Facts
- The appellant filed five title suits between January 2025 and February 2025 (Suit Nos. 53 to 57 of 2025)
- Each suit sought preemption of a sale deed and an ad interim injunction to restrain respondents from altering the nature or character of the subject property
- The respondents filed affidavits-in-opposition in the High Court, asserting they had taken physical possession of the properties prior to the filing of suits
- The respondents claimed the suits were barred under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the limitation period of one year had expired from the date of possession
- The appellant did not explicitly plead the date of possession in the plaints or injunction applications
- The respondents relied on documents not filed before the Trial Court to substantiate their claim of prior possession
Procedural History
- January 2025: Five suits filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paschim Medinipur
- January 21 - 22, 2025: Trial Judge refused ad interim injunction in all five suits, despite acknowledging a prima facie case
- Reason given by Trial Judge: Defendants must be heard before granting injunction
- February - March 2025: Appeals filed before the Calcutta High Court under FMAT 425 - 428 of 2025 and FMA 1350 of 2025
- March 17, 2026: Hearing concluded before Division Bench
- March 17, 2026: Judgment delivered
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- Argued that a prima facie case of preemption right was established through the plaints
- Relied on Neeraj Darbari v. Manoj Rameshwar Shukla to assert that courts need not resolve disputed facts at the interlocutory stage
- Contended that the Trial Judge erred in denying injunction despite finding a prima facie case
- Submitted that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, not determinable at the injunction stage
For the Respondents
- Argued that the suits were time-barred under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963
- Claimed possession was taken by purchasers prior to filing of suits, triggering the one-year limitation period
- Relied on affidavits-in-opposition filed in the High Court to prove possession
- Asserted that the appellant’s failure to plead the date of possession rendered the suits inherently defective
- Contended that the Trial Judge was justified in withholding injunction pending full hearing
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Setting aside of the Trial Judge’s orders refusing ad interim injunction
- Grant of ad interim injunction restraining respondents from altering the subject properties
- Direction to the Trial Court to expedite disposal of the injunction applications
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may refuse an ad interim injunction in a preemption suit merely because the defendant has raised a plausible limitation defence, even when the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, and whether the issue of limitation can be decided at the interlocutory stage on materials not placed before the Trial Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on the well-established principle that at the stage of ad interim injunction, the court’s role is not to adjudicate disputed facts or complex questions of law, but to determine whether a prima facie case and a triable issue exist. Citing Neeraj Darbari v. Manoj Rameshwar Shukla, counsel argued that the plaintiff need not prove title to the hilt. The Trial Judge’s own finding of a prima facie case made the refusal of injunction legally untenable. The limitation defence, based on possession, was not pleaded in the plaints and was raised for the first time in affidavits filed in appeal - materials that cannot be considered at the interlocutory stage.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963, clearly fixes the limitation period from the date of physical possession, which they claimed occurred before the suits were filed. They argued that the appellant’s failure to plead the date of possession in the plaints rendered the suits inherently time-barred on the face of it. They further submitted that the Trial Judge was correct in refusing injunction to avoid irreparable prejudice, as possession had already been established through documents submitted in opposition.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court undertook a meticulous review of the legal principles governing ad interim injunctions and the application of Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court observed that the Trial Judge’s refusal to grant injunction, despite acknowledging a prima facie case, was legally unsustainable.
"It is trite law that at the stage of grant of temporary/ad interim injunction, the Court is merely to see whether a prima facie case and/or triable issue has been made out and it is not for the plaintiff at that inchoate stage to prove his title to the hilt."
The Court emphasized that the function of the court at the interlocutory stage is not to resolve factual disputes but to determine whether the plaintiff has disclosed a sufficient cause of action to warrant preservation of the status quo pending trial. The Trial Judge’s reasoning - that the defendant must be heard before granting injunction - was rejected as a misapplication of the law. The right to be heard is not a ground to deny an injunction where a prima facie case exists.
Regarding limitation, the Court held that Article 97’s starting point is the date of physical possession. However, the appellant’s plaints did not contain any clear averment regarding when possession was taken by the respondents. The respondents’ claim of prior possession was supported by affidavits and documents filed for the first time before the High Court, which were not part of the record before the Trial Court.
"At that stage, the Court only has to see whether, on the basis of the case made out in the plaint and the injunction application, sufficient cause of action to obtain the reliefs sought has been disclosed..."
The Court ruled that such materials, which go to the root of limitation - a mixed question of fact and law - cannot be considered at the interlocutory stage. To do so would amount to a premature adjudication of the merits, which is contrary to the very purpose of an ad interim injunction.
The Court further clarified that while limitation may ultimately defeat the suit, it cannot be used as a sword to deny interim relief when the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case on the face of the pleadings.
The Verdict
The appeals were allowed on contest. The Calcutta High Court set aside the Trial Judge’s orders dated January 21 - 22, 2025, in all five suits and granted ad interim injunctions restraining the respondents from changing the nature or character of the subject properties. The respondents were directed to file written objections to the injunction applications within one week. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the injunction applications within three weeks of filing of such objections. There was no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prima Facie Case Is Sufficient for Interim Relief
- Practitioners may now confidently seek ad interim injunctions in preemption suits where the plaint discloses a plausible claim of adjacent ownership, even if limitation is contested
- Courts cannot deny injunction merely because the defendant raises a limitation defence based on unpleaded facts
- The burden at the interlocutory stage remains on the plaintiff to show a prima facie case - not to prove the defence wrong
Limitation Cannot Be Decided on Post-Hoc Materials
- Documents submitted for the first time in appeal cannot be used to defeat an ad interim injunction application
- Courts must confine their review to the pleadings and materials filed before the Trial Court at the injunction stage
- Any factual dispute regarding possession or date of registration must be resolved at trial, not at the interlocutory stage
Procedural Discipline Required in Pleadings
- Plaintiffs in preemption suits must clearly plead the date of sale and, if possible, the date of possession to avoid ambiguity
- Failure to plead key facts does not automatically bar interim relief, but may weaken the case at trial
- Respondents must raise limitation as a specific defence in written statements, not reserve it for appellate affidavits
