JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. This appeal will be heard. 2. Lower Court records need not be called for. 3. Since the respondent is represented by the learned advocate pursuant to the Caveat lodged by the respondent, service of notice of appeal upon the respondent is dispensed with. 4. The appeal thus be treated ready as regards service. 5. At the time when the application for stay filed in connection with the appeal was taken up for hearing, we were requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit on the basis of the papers available before us. We are informed that all relevant papers, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are annexed to the stay application and as such we have decided to hear the appeal on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal. 6. Let us now consider the merit of the appeal in the facts of the instant case. 7. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking the following reliefs :- (a) Declaration that the plaintiff being the District Grand Lodge of Mark Master Mason of Bengal is entitled to use, enjoy, operate, control and manage and administer the Eastern Hall with adjoining lawn at Premises No.19, Park Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-700 016 as fully described in the schedule below either by itself or through its appointed operating agent without any obstruction, infringement or hindrance such whatsoever; (b) Declaration that the Defendants or any or them do not have any sort of right on and over the Schedule property or to make any obstruction or disturbance in free and peaceful use and enjoyment and administration of the said Schedule property by the plaintiff or its agent; (c) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents and servants from creating any obstruction, disturbance and/or interfering with the free and peaceful use, occupation enjoyment, administration, management and all control of the suit property as described in the Schedule below in any manner whatsoever; (d) Temporary Injunction in terms of prayer (a); (e) Leave Under order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code; (f) Such other or further relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to. 8. 8. Such reliefs were claimed by the plaintiff in respect of the suit property which was mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, which runs as follows :- “ALL THAT Eastern Hall measuring about 2500 sq.ft. and adjoining Lawn measuring about 6500 sq.ft. of premises No. 19, Park Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-700 015.” In short, the plaintiff complains that their right of user, enjoyment and/or management and/or administration of the Eastern Hall with the adjoining Lawn of the premises No. 19, Park Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-700 015 as described in the schedule of the plaint was regularly being disturbed and/or obstructed and/or infringed by the defendant. Immediately, after filing the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant from disturbing their right of user, enjoyment, operation, management and/or administration of the Eastern Hall with adjoining Lawn at premises No.19, Park Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata–700 015 till the disposal of the suit. 9. The defendant appeared in the said suit and contested the said application for temporary injunction. The learned trial judge after considering the respective pleadings of the parties, disposed of the plaintiff’s said application for temporary injunction by directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of their respective possession over the suit property till the disposal of the suit. 10. The said order of status quo was also affirmed by this court in an appeal filed by the defendant/appellant. Subsequently, the plaintiff/respondent filed another application under Order 39 Rules l and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction for restraining the defendants and their men, agents and associates from causing any obstruction/disturbances or interference in the free ingress and egress of the plaintiff and their vehicles in the suit premises, i.e. Eastern Hall of the suit premises. An ad interim order of injunction was also prayed for in the said application. 11. The defendant contested the plaintiff’s said application for injunction by filing objection denying the allegations made out by the plaintiff in the said application. 12. An ad interim order of injunction was also prayed for in the said application. 11. The defendant contested the plaintiff’s said application for injunction by filing objection denying the allegations made out by the plaintiff in the said application. 12. The learned trial judge disposed of the plaintiff’s said application for temporary injunction with the following order :- “In view of the order of status quo passed by this court on 8.4.2011 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in FMA 1059 of 2011 and in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLA 27102 of 2014 the defendants by an order of temporary injunction is restrained from causing any obstruction, disturbances or interference with the free ingress and egress of the plaintiff and their vehicles in the suit premises till disposal of the suit. Be it specifically mentioned here that apart from the vehicles of plaintiff’s office bearers and staffs, no other vehicle will have free ingress and egress in the suit property till disposal of the suit. Fix 27.10.2017 for hearing of application u/o 39 R 4 CPC.” 13. The legality and/or correctness of the said order is under challenge in this appeal. 14. The plaintiff’s right of ingress to and egress from the suit premises through the gate and/or passage leading to the lawn and the hall has not been mentioned in the plaint. Exercise of such right of ingress and egress through the disputed gate and the passage leading to the lawn and the hall has also not been clearly mentioned even in the application for injunction. The plaintiff, however, for the first time introduced such dispute regarding its right of enjoyment of free access through the disputed gate and the passage leading to the lawn and hall and obstruction and/or interference created by the defendant in the exercise of the plaintiff’s such right of way through the disputed gate and the passage in the reply filed by the plaintiff against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the defendant in connection with the said injunction application. The disputed gate and the passage over which the plaintiff is now claiming some reliefs are neither mentioned in the pleadings of the plaint nor mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and/or the injunction application while describing the suit property therein. The disputed gate and the passage over which the plaintiff is now claiming some reliefs are neither mentioned in the pleadings of the plaint nor mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and/or the injunction application while describing the suit property therein. Thus, the disputed gate and the said passage were never included and/or described as the subject matter of the suit. 15. It is well settled that injunction cannot be granted in respect of any non-suit property. Thus until the schedule of the plaint is suitably amended and the dispute regarding the plaintiff’s claim for exercise of its alleged right of passage through the gate and the passage leading to the lawn and the hall and the alleged interference of the plaintiff’s such right by the defendant are brought on record by making it a part of the pleadings in the suit, the court cannot pass any interim relief in the suit. As such, we are of the view that the learned trial judge was not justified in allowing such an application for injunction and thereby granting relief to the plaintiff which the plaintiff claimed in the said application. The impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. 16. We are informed by the learned counsel that the parties have already completed their pleadings in the suit. As such, we request the learned trial judge to make all endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. 17. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.