Alok Niwas Private Limited v. Debasish Pal and Ors.

The appellant, Alok Niwas Private Limited, purchased several plots of land from defendant Nos. 6 to 26 (collectively referred to as 'the Pal family') to construct and set up an industrial park at the scheduled properties in Mouza Bipannapara and Mouza Mohiary, District Howrah. The appellant entered into an oral agreement dated May 7, 2013 with respondent No. 1, Debasish Pal, for the mutual conveyance of land totaling 3.8680 acres for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 6,88,22,217/-. Under the reciprocal arrangement, the appellant was to convey 65.640 decimals of land to respondent No. 1, who in turn would convey 151.46 decimals of partitioned land along with undivided shares to the appellant. The appellant discharged its reciprocal obligation by executing a registered deed of conveyance for 65.640 decimals of land in favour of respondent No. 1 on November 1, 2015. However, respondent No. 1 delayed and ultimately refused to perform his part of the agreement, prompting the appellant to file Title Suit No. 187 of 2019 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah, seeking specific performance and damages of Rs. 127 crore.

The appellant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a temporary injunction to restrain respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from changing the nature and character of the suit property, making constructions thereon, alienating or encumbering the property, restricting free ingress and egress from National Highway 6 through the common passage, and creating nuisance or obstruction on the common passage. Respondent No. 1 denied the existence of any oral agreement dated May 7, 2013, claiming the letters relied upon by the appellant were unilaterally written and that he never agreed to sell the suit property. The learned trial court rejected the temporary injunction application on contest by its order dated October 3, 2019, leading to the present first miscellaneous appeal (FMA 916 of 2025) along with connected applications.

The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Sandip Kumar De, undertook a detailed examination of the plaint, written objections, and the trial court's reasoning. The Court found that the oral agreement was supported by the conduct of the parties, including the execution of five deeds of conveyance by respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellant and the appellant's execution of the reciprocal conveyance deed. The Court held that the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement was maintainable under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and that the existence of the oral agreement was apparent from the parties' conduct, as even the trial judge had acknowledged. The Court further held that the suit was maintainable before the ordinary civil court and was not a commercial dispute requiring adjudication under the Commercial Courts Act. The Court distinguished the cited precedents—Brij Mohan (decided after full trial), Shivaji Yallappa Patil (involving possession as a sine qua non), and Ambala Sarabhai (involving exchange of emails as concluded contract)—as factually inapplicable to the present case at the interlocutory stage.

The Court allowed the appeal on contest, setting aside the trial court's order dated October 3, 2019, and granted the injunction restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from changing the nature and character of the suit property, making further constructions, alienating or encumbering the property, restricting free ingress and egress through the common passage from National Highway 6, and creating any nuisance, obstruction, or parking vehicles on the common passage, until disposal of the suit. The interim order dated April 7, 2026 was confirmed and modified accordingly. The Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year, and disposed of the connected applications (CAN 2 of 2020, CAN 3 of 2021, and CAN 4 of 2026) with no order as to costs.