Side WPA 1105 of 2026 Parul Tea & Agro Plantation Pvt. Ltd v. State of West Bengal Mr. Arnab Sengupta Mr. Deborshi Dhar Mr. Riju & Ors.

Ms. Supriya Singh, JGP Mr. Salok Sah … for the petitioner … for the State Mr. Bhaskar Roy Mahashaya … for the respondent no. 7 The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a mandamus commanding the Officer-in-charge, Kranti Outpost under Malbazar Police Station to provide necessary police assistance the petitioner immediate implementation of the ad interim order of injunction dated January 27, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jalpaiguri. Record reveals that the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 38 of 2026 on January 22, 2026 and also filed an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of 2 the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction. The application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the petitioner on January 27, 2026 and an ad interim order of injunction was sought for by the petitioner. The learned trial Judge by an order dated January 27, 2026 allowed the prayer for ad interim order of injunction restraining the defendant, i.e., the respondent no. 7 herein, and their men and agents from entering and disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner in the suit land till March 20, 2026. On a day prior to the returnable date, i.e., on March 19, 2026, the petitioner filed a put up petition for urgent hearing of the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The put up petition was allowed and the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken up for hearing on March 19, 2026 and the same was allowed by directing the Officer-in-charge, Kranti Outpost under Malbazar Police Station to provide necessary police assistance plaintiff/petitioner herein for implementation of the ad interim order of injunction dated January 27,

2026. 3 State files copy of the report of the Officer-in- charge, Kranti Outpost under Malbazar Police Station dated July 18, 2026 which is taken on record. The said report states that the dispute is civil in nature and a suit is pending. After going through the order dated March 19, 2026, this Court finds that the learned trial Judge recorded that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure were complied with by the petitioner and the affidavit of compliance was filed. The learned trial Judge accordingly was of the view that the defendant, i.e., the private respondent no. 7 herein, has the knowledge of the restraint order passed by this Court. However, from the order dated March 20, 2026 this Court finds that the petitioner was directed to file fresh requisites through both ways and June 22, 2026 was fixed for service returns. The learned trial Judge by an order dated June 22, 2026 recorded a specific finding that from the record it appears that the earlier orders have not been complied with. Petitioner was directed to comply with the order dated March 19, 2026 at once and he was directed to furnish the copy of the plaint and the order. The petitioner was directed to file fresh requisites through both ways at once. 4 This Court refrains from making any observation as to the propriety of the orders passed in the suit sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the property in question and relies upon an ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned trial Judge. Record reveals that the order of injunction has not been served upon the respondent no. 7. Learned advocate for the respondent no. 7 submits that the respondent no. 7 is in possession of the property in question. It appears from the submission made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties that there is a serious dispute as to the possession in respect of the property which is the subject-matter of the civil suit. For such reason this Court is not inclined to pass any further direction upon the police authority at this stage. This writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. 5 The petitioner and the private-respondent will be free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)