JUDGMENT Asim Kumar Mondal, J. The appellant, Prakash Ply Centre (Private) Limited, has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated September 14, 2011 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in G.A. No.2722 of 2011 arising out of ACR No 4 of 2005. The Hon’ble Single Judge by the order impugned granted an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the purchaser from creating any third party interest in the property-in-dispute during the pendency of the application. However, the question of maintainability of the application was kept open. The parties were directed to exchange their affidavits. The premises No.10 Bow Street, Kolkata, exclusively and absolutely belonged to the trust of Zoroastrian Communities’ religious and charitable fund. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation directed the demolition of premises No.10 Bow Street Kolkata. In view of the said direction one petition being ACR No.4 of 2005 was filed before this Court for sale of the said premises under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920. This Court directed newspaper publications in a Bengali newspaper and an English daily newspaper seeking objection, if any, from the Parsee community regarding sale of the property. As per order of this Court a valuer was appointed to value the said property. As there was no objection from the Parsee Community regarding sale of the property, another advertisement was directed inviting offers to purchase the said property. Prakash Ply Centre (Private) Limited placed an offer. The sale was confirmed in favour of Prakash Ply Centre (Private) Limited in a court auction. In pursuant to the order of this Court, the trustee conveyed the property to Prakash Ply Centre (Private) Limited for a consideration of Rs.1,60,52,400/- (Rupees one crore sixty lakh fifty two thousand four hundred) only, which was accepted by this Court as fair reasonable. The said property was, thereafter, conveyed by executing a registered deed of conveyance in favour of the appellant. The appellant with a purpose to construct a multi-storied building on the said property duly applied for building sanction plan and had obtained the same from Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The appellant started construction upon said property for commercial purpose in the year 2008. The appellant with a purpose to construct a multi-storied building on the said property duly applied for building sanction plan and had obtained the same from Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The appellant started construction upon said property for commercial purpose in the year 2008. The Applicant in the application being G.A. No.2722 of 2011 arising out of ACR No.4 of 2005 has prayed for recall of order dated 31st January, 2006 passed in ACR No.4 of 2005 conforming the sale of the premises in question and for cancellation of the deed of conveyance. The said applicant, inter alia, prayed for enquiry into the management and injunction restraining appellant, Prakash Ply Centre (Private) Limited, from alienating, encumbering, transferring and/or disposing of the premises No.10, Bow Street, Kolkata. The Hon’ble Single Judge in the said application passed the order impugned, which is under challenge in the present appeal. In view of above facts and circumstances, the prime question to be considered in the present appeal is whether the Hon’ble Single Judge, erroneously, exercised discretion in passing order impugned by restraining the purchaser for creating any third party interest in respect of the property. Mr. Anindya Kumar Mitra, learned senior advocate, advanced his argument in support of the present appeal, that in the year 2005 an application was moved under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920, by the respondents No. 2 to 6 in ACR No.4 of 2005, praying for leave to the trustees of the Calcutta Zoroastrian Community’s Religious and Charity Fund to sell the premises No.10, Bow Street, Kolkata, for the purpose of fulfilling the objects of the society under the provisions of Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920. This Court granted the said prayer. The property in question was sold by auction as per the direction of the Court after observing all necessary formalities. The present appellant purchased the property in question for a valuable consideration, mutated his name and obtained the sanctioned plan for developing the said property. It is, further, submitted that the applicant/respondent No.1 in G.A. No.2722 of 2011, approached the Court for recalling the order dated January 31, 2006 conforming the sale of the premises in question and, also, for cancellation of the deed of convenience executed in favour of the present appellant after a delay of more than five years. Mr. It is, further, submitted that the applicant/respondent No.1 in G.A. No.2722 of 2011, approached the Court for recalling the order dated January 31, 2006 conforming the sale of the premises in question and, also, for cancellation of the deed of convenience executed in favour of the present appellant after a delay of more than five years. Mr. Mitra, further, submitted that a four storied building has, already, come up as per sanctioned plan on the suit premises. The construction work was going on since 2008 and by this time some portions/office spaces have, already, been let out/sold out to different persons on consideration. The property in question is, now, fully developed. The trust office is almost adjacent to the property and it is not believable that the applicant or any person among the trustees was not aware of the development of the property. The respondent No.1 had full knowledge regarding the sale process in Court and, thereafter, execution of register deed of conveyance in 2006. The appellant is bona fide purchaser and he is stranger and not related to the management and administration of the trust. The trust property was duly valued by the valuer, Dr. Ashok Nain, who had opined that the value of property would be around Rs.16, 00,000/- (Rupees sixteen lakh) only per cottah. Mr. P.C. Sen, learned senior advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 and, in reply, submits that his client is a beneficiary of the Zoroastrian Community’s Religious and Charity Fund, a trust for the benefit of poor and needy Zoroastrians living in Kolkata. The respondent no. 1 came to know about the mismanagement of the trust properties and specially in respect of premises No.10, Bow Street, Kolkata, from a report published in the Times of India, Kolkata edition, on August 26, 2011. The respondent no. 1, thereafter, contracted Times of India Office in Kolkata to enquire into the matter and came to know that the trustees have disposed of the property at 10, Bow Street, Kolkata, pursuant to a conspiracy by the trustees, the valuer and the intended purchaser, Prakash Ply Centre (Private) Limited. Mr. The respondent no. 1, thereafter, contracted Times of India Office in Kolkata to enquire into the matter and came to know that the trustees have disposed of the property at 10, Bow Street, Kolkata, pursuant to a conspiracy by the trustees, the valuer and the intended purchaser, Prakash Ply Centre (Private) Limited. Mr. Sen, further, submits that the trustees filed the petition under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920, seeking permission for sale of the premises No.10, Bow street, Kolkata, on the ground that the building was very old and its condition had deteriorated and a demolition order was passed by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation vide its letter dated November 22, 2001. The said petition was filed after almost a gap of 4 (four) years. No explanation was given for such delay and for immediate necessity to sell the properties. Mr. Sen, also, pointed out that in the title deed dated September 2, 1967, the property has been described as two-storied built house with the land measuring about 9 cottah. No valuation has been done in respect of the said dilapidated structure, which included old bricks, tick wood doors, windows, steel joist etc. Admittedly, share capital of the purchaser, that is, Prakash Ply Centre (Private) Limited was Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakh) only. No explanation has been given by the buyer as to how the said company obtained the consideration money as accepted in the auction for purchasing the said trust property. Mr. Sen submits, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh B. Desai and others versus Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others reported in Supreme Court Cases (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 638, that a plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained, which is entirely a question of fact. A plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 came to know about the purported sale of the trust properties only on August 26, 2011 when a report was published in the Times of India, Kolkata edition, regarding mismanagement of the trust properties. A plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. In the instant case, the respondent No.1 came to know about the purported sale of the trust properties only on August 26, 2011 when a report was published in the Times of India, Kolkata edition, regarding mismanagement of the trust properties. We have considered the statements made in the pleadings and we are of the opinion that the allegations, in our view, make out a case for ad interim injunction. Having given our anxious consideration we are satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case to go to trial and to get at least an interim order of injunction during the pendency of the application for injunction. Any creation of third party interest in the properties would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The Hon’ble Single Judge, in our view, rightly exercised His Lordship’s discretion in passing an ad interim order of injunction. We, therefore, request the Hon’ble Single Judge to expedite the hearing of the injunction matter as far as possible, but restrain the parties from creating any third party interest in relation to the properties-in-dispute during the pendency of the application for injunction. By way of abundant caution, we clarify that we have not finally gone into the merits of the claims and the counter-claims of the parties involved in the application for injunction. The Hon’ble Single Judge would decide the application being wholly uninfluenced by any observation made by us as to the merits as is well known that the findings arrived at in dealing with the prayer for ad interim injunction, pending the disposal of the application for injunction, even if they relate to any material question involved in the application for injunction cannot take the place of findings in the final decision of the Hon’ble Single Judge in connection with the application for injunction. Thus, the appeal is dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. I agree.