Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. Certified copy of the impugned order has been produced by the learned advocate of the appellant. Thus, the defect in the appeal is cured. 2. By the impugned order, the plaintiff’s prayer for ad interim injunction was refused primarily on the ground of lack of urgency involved in the matter. Learned Trial Judge also held that the suit property is not identifiable with reference to the schedule of the plaint. 3. Be that as it may, it is contended by Mr. Tewari, learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the said suit was filed for declaration and injunction and after filing the said suit, an injunction was sought for with an allegation that the defendant was attempted to encroach the land purchased by the plaintiff. It is pointed out by Mr. Tewari that after purchasing the suit property, a part of the land was donated to the Municipal authority for the purpose of construction of road. The land which was donated to the Municipal authority for construction of road was identified with the figure ‘C’ and ‘A’ in the map annexed to the plaint. 4. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant is trying to construct on the land donated by the plaintiff to the Municipal authority in such a way that if such construction is allowed to be made, its entrance through the passage identified as gate-B will be obstructed. 5. From such submission of Mr. Tewari, it appears to us that the defendant is trying to construct on the land which was donated to the Municipal authority. After the land was donated to the Municipal authority, the plaintiff ceased to be the owner of the said portion of the land. If the defendant raises construction on the municipal land, the plaintiff cannot seek any injunction until and unless it satisfies that its easementary right through the gate being identified as ‘B’ existing on the strip of land donated to the municipality, is affected. No such case is made out by the plaintiff in the plaint and in the injunction application. 6. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality in refusing to grant ad interim injunction in the facts of the instant case. No such case is made out by the plaintiff in the plaint and in the injunction application. 6. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegality in refusing to grant ad interim injunction in the facts of the instant case. We, thus, decline to admit this appeal for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. It is, however, made clear that the findings which we have recorded hereinabove are made only for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. However, the learned Trial Judge will be absolutely free to decide the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 8. The appeal and the application being CAN 11096 of 2016 both are disposed of. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.