Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the plaintiffs / appellants and is directed against the judgment & order dated May 7, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore in Misc. Appeal No.48 of 2013 thereby refusing to interfere with Order No.1 dated March 20, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 4th Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No.90 of 2013. The petitioners filed suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and other reliefs against the defendant nos.1, 2 & 3 and other consequential reliefs against the defendants. In that suit they filed an application for temporary injunction and also moved for ad interim injunction. while dealing with the matter, the learned Trial Judge asked the defendants to file a written objection, but, did not grant any ad interim injunction. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.48 of 2013 which was disposed of by the impugned order holding that, the misc. appeal is dismissed on contests against the defendant nos. 10 & 11 without any costs. He directed the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the application for temporary injunction in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that while rejecting the prayer for ad interim injunction, the learned Trial Judge did not discuss anything as to prima facie case or urgency of the matter. But, the First Appellate Court dealt with such matters. The learned Appellate Court has observed that the plaintiffs filed the said title suit for cancellation of the building plan sanctioned by the defendant no.1 in favour of the defendant nos. 10 & 11 in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property on the ground that the said plan had been passed violating the Rule 49 of the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007. The learned First Appellate Court has observed that the appellants have failed to file any deed or relevant documents to show the prima facie case. Accordingly, the learned First Appellate Court has observed that the appellants did not come before the Court with clean hands and that, the appellants have no prima facie case. The learned First Appellate Court has observed that the appellants have failed to file any deed or relevant documents to show the prima facie case. Accordingly, the learned First Appellate Court has observed that the appellants did not come before the Court with clean hands and that, the appellants have no prima facie case. The learned First Appellate Court has also observed that the cardinal principle of law is that a person of the wrong footing cannot claim any equitable relief on the basis of any wrong and as such the appellants appear to have no prima facie case though he has held that the present appeal is maintainable. The above observations have been made when the defendant nos.10 & 11 filed the materials in support of their contention that the concerned road was about 8 feet in wide, but, the appellants had encroached about 2 feet and that is why, now the road has become 6 feet wide. While the plan was sanctioned, the road was about 8 feet in wide and so, the plaintiffs / appellants have failed to show any prima facie case to go for trial. What I find, that many photographs have been incorporated in the application, and these photographs show that the building in question had already been constructed up to G+2 storied level and the basic construction is complete. So, at present there is no urgency in the matter. The application for injunction is still pending. So, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge should be directed to dispose of the application for temporary injunction within a certain period as indicated by the learned First Appellate Court. There is no scope of interference and the impugned judgment and order should be sustained. The learned Trial Judge is, therefore, directed to dispose of the application within three months from the date of communication of this order. This application is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.