JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 05.07.2016, passed in Misc. Appeal No.02/2016, whereby the First Appellate Court had set-aside the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No.53/2014 arising out of Title Suit No.118/2014. 3. For the purpose of disposal the instant petition, the parties herein are referred in the same status as they stand before the trial Court. 4. The petitioner herein as plaintiff, has instituted a suit claiming declaration that the plaintiff had pre-emptory right of contract to purchase the Schedule-II property at Rs.2,80,000/- from the Principal Defendant No.1 (transferee); for a direction to the Principal Defendant No.1 to execute the deed of re-conveyance in respect of the Schedule-II property in favor of the plaintiffs on receipt of Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff within a specific period as may be fixed by the Court and in the event the Principal Defendant No.1 fails to comply the direction to execute and register the deed of re-conveyance in favor of the plaintiff through the process of the Court; for declaration that the Principal Defendant No.1 is a defaulter in payment of rent and the Schedule-I premises is bonafide required by the plaintiff and Principal Defendant No.1 is liable to be ejected from the Schedule-I premises; for recovery of khas possession of Schedule-I land and premises by ejecting the Principal Defendant No.1 or his men or agents and removing all their belongings; for permanent and temporary injunction including ad-interim order restraining the Principal Defendant No.1 from any way changing the nature and feature of the Schedule – I premises, its roof etc and/or from alienating the same or any part thereof till disposal of the suit. 5. Along with said suit, an injunction application was filed seeking ad interim temporary injunction restraining the Principal Defendant No.1 from any way changing the nature and feature of the Schedule 1 premises, its roof etc and/or from alienating the same or any part thereof till the disposal of the suit. The said Misc. application was registered and numbered as Misc. (Injunction) Case No.53/2014. The Principal Defendants have duly filed their written statement as well the written objection. The said Misc. application was registered and numbered as Misc. (Injunction) Case No.53/2014. The Principal Defendants have duly filed their written statement as well the written objection. In the written statement so filed by the Principal Defendant No.1, it has been mentioned that in terms with the deed of family settlement dated 18.11.2020 the suit property along with other property were already amicably partitioned and such partition already acted amongst the co-sharers including the plaintiff and the Proforma Defendants in two parts and they are in separate exclusive possession as specifically mentioned in Schedule A of the said deed. It has also been mentioned that the deed of family settlement clearly shows that the suit property is already partitioned before execution of the deed of family settlement dated 18.11.2010 and the Proforma Defendant No.2 had been in possession of the suit property through the defendant No.1 as per their family partition which took place much prior to the execution of the sale deed by which the Proforma Defendant No.2’s exclusive share was transferred by way of a sale deed in favour the defendant No.1 bearing deed No.3481 dated 10.12.2013. It was the specific case in the written statement that as the suit property along with other properties were already partitioned amongst the co-sharers and as such the suit was not maintainable. 6. The Court of the Civil Judge No.1, Cachar vide an order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Misc. Case No.53/2014 after hearing the parties was of the opinion that the original suit is centered around the suit land and if there is any change in the nature and feature of the land the very purpose of the suit would be frustrated. Under such circumstances, the trial Court vide the said order dated 11.02.2016 directed status quo in respect to the suit land be maintained by both the parities 7. It is against the said order that the Principal Defendant No.1 who is the respondent No.1 herein, had filed an appeal before the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar which was registered and numbered as Misc. Appeal No.02/2016. The said appeal was endorsed for disposal to the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC at Silchar. Vide the impugned order dated 05.07.2016, the appeal was allowed thereby setting aside the order of status quo passed by the learned trial Court. Appeal No.02/2016. The said appeal was endorsed for disposal to the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC at Silchar. Vide the impugned order dated 05.07.2016, the appeal was allowed thereby setting aside the order of status quo passed by the learned trial Court. It is against the said impugned order dated 05.07.2016 that the present proceedings have been initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.R. Sikdar and Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. From a perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the claim of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, Principal Defendant No.2 and the Proforma Defendant Nos.3 & 4 were the joint owners of non evictable jote rights of the land under the Proforma Defendant No.5 and the owner of an RCC shop covering 184.5 sq ft area covered by holding No.307 of Ward No.11. The said land and the house standing thereon have been more specifically described in Schedule I to the Plaint. It is the further case of the plaintiff that principal Defendant No.1 was inducted as a monthly tenant in respect to the shop at a monthly rent of Rs.1850 payable according to English calendar month within the 7th day of the following month vide a bilateral tenency agreement dated 01.04.2005. The said rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs.2500/- per month from the month of December, 2009. Upon the death of the mother of the plaintiff, Principal Defendant No.2 and the Proforma Defendant Nos.3 & 4, the plaintiff, Principal Defendant No.2 and the Proforma Defendant Nos.3 & 4 became the joint owners of the non evictable jote rights of the land and the property described in Schedule I. 10. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the Principal Defendant No.1 with a ulterior motive and without tendering the rent to the owner started depositing the rent in the Court and in making such deposit, the defendant No.1 also defaulted in making the payment of rent. It is admitted fact that there was a mutual family arrangement existing amongst the plaintiff, the Principal Defendant No.2 and the Proforma Defendant Nos.3 and 4. The said agreement was duly recorded in the form of a katcha deed dated 18.11.2010 duly signed by the parties. It is admitted fact that there was a mutual family arrangement existing amongst the plaintiff, the Principal Defendant No.2 and the Proforma Defendant Nos.3 and 4. The said agreement was duly recorded in the form of a katcha deed dated 18.11.2010 duly signed by the parties. In terms with the said deed the Principal Defendant No.2 got 138 sq ft of the shop, namely, “Rangtuli” within the Schedule I premises with 180 sq ft of land. The said shop has been described in Schedule (II). In terms with the said katcha deed dated 18.11.2010 the Proforma Defendant Nos.3 and 4 sold their undivided portion of the property to plaintiff No.1 by the registered sale deed No.571/2013. 11. As the Principal Defendant No.1 was a defaulter in payment of rent in respect to the Schedule II premises, a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 05.08.2014 thereby terminating the tenancy and asking the Principal Defendant No.1 to vacate the Schedule I premises. In response to the said legal notice, the Principal Defendant No.1 by a letter through his lawyer dated 11.08.2014 informed the lawyer of the plaintiff that as per the katcha deed dated 18.11.2010 the Principal Defendant No.2 got the entire schedule I premises and its land in the amicable family arrangement in his portion and the Principal Defendant by the registered deed of sale No.3481/2013 dated 09.12.2013 registered on 10.12.2013 sold the entire schedule I premises and its land to the Principal Defendant No.1. It is under such circumstances, the instant suit was filed claiming the reliefs as already stated herein above. 12. Along with the said suit, an injunction application was filed praying inter alia for a ad interim temporary injunction restraining the Principal Defendant No.1 from changing the nature and feature of the Schedule I premises, its roof etc and or alienating the same or any part thereof till the disposal of the suit. 13. In the written statement so filed by the Principal Defendant No.1, it was the categorical stand that the property in question was duly partitioned amongst the plaintiff, the Principal Defendant No.2, the Proforma Defendant Nos.3 and 4 vide the katcha deed dated 18.11.2010. It was the case of the Principal Defendant No.1 that there was an undisputed partition of the suit property and such the suit for pre-emption is not maintainable. It was the case of the Principal Defendant No.1 that there was an undisputed partition of the suit property and such the suit for pre-emption is not maintainable. It is also relevant herein to mention that there is no challenge to the deed of sale bearing deed No.3481/2013 dated 09.12.2013 which was registered on 10.12.2013. 14. From the above materials on record it therefore transpires that the Principal Defendant No.1 has a right, title, interest and possession over the land and house purchased vide the registered deed of sale bearing deed No.3481/2013. Any injunction so passed thereby restraining the Principal Defendant No.1 to exercise his rights of ownership as well as to reap the benefits of the ownership pending disposal of the suit would be a loss to the Principal Defendant No.1 which cannot be compensated in terms of money. However, if the plaintiffs succeed in the suit they can very well have the property back. It is also relevant herein to take note that if there is any sale or transfer of the suit property during the pendency of the suit, it would also lead to third party rights being created and may also result in multiplicity of proceedings. Consequently, this Court therefore in order to balance the equities and taking into account the irreparable loss, harm and injury directs the parties to the suit to maintain status quo as regards the title to the suit property meaning thereby that during the pendency of the suit, there shall be not be any transfer of the suit property in any manner whatsoever. 15. However, this Court is not inclined to interfere and or restrain the enjoyment of the suit property which the Principal Defendant No.1 had purchased on the basis of the registered deed of sale bearing deed No.3481/2013 dated 09.12.2013. Under such circumstances, the Principal Defendant No.1 would be entitled to enjoy the suit property by making renovations or constructions over the suit property during the pendency of the suit. It is however made clear that while making such constructions or renovations the very edifice and the structure of the suit property should not be demolished or destroyed. Further to that the Principal Defendant No.1 shall not be entitled to claim any equity or rights on the basis of such construction or renovation carried out at the time of final adjudication of the suit. Further to that the Principal Defendant No.1 shall not be entitled to claim any equity or rights on the basis of such construction or renovation carried out at the time of final adjudication of the suit. Any construction and/or renovation shall be at the risk of the Principal Defendant No.1. 16. With the above, the instant petition stands disposed of. 17. It is made clear that the observations made herein above, are only for the purpose of deciding the injunction application and the trial Court shall not under any circumstances be influenced by the observations made herein above at the time of adjudication of the suit.