Injunctions cannot bind non-parties, and statutory bar provisions may prevent inclusion of protected land in a partition suit.

A civil court cannot enforce a temporary injunction or police-aid order against purchasers who were not parties to the suit, because such relief binds only parties to the proceeding. The document also states that where land is protected by intermediary rights recognised under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, and a statutory jurisdictional bar applies, the court cannot validly add that land to the suit schedule or proceed with a partition claim over it. It further notes that a prior withdrawal of an SLP with liberty to seek review did not prevent a different affected party from maintaining later appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals were maintainable despite the earlier withdrawal of an SLP with liberty to approach the High Court for review; (ii) Whether the temporary injunction and police-aid directions could be enforced against purchasers who were not parties to the suit and whose vendors had not been impleaded; (iii) Whether inclusion of the Housing Board land in the suit schedule and the partition claim were barred by the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals were maintainable despite the earlier withdrawal of an SLP with liberty to approach the High Court for review?

Analysis: The earlier SLP had been withdrawn with liberty only to pursue review before the High Court. The present appellant, however, was not a party to the earlier proceedings and had not challenged the impugned order earlier. The bar against a challenge after withdrawal could not be extended so as to defeat a challenge by a different party whose rights were directly affected by the later orders.

Conclusion: The appeals were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the temporary injunction and police-aid directions could be enforced against purchasers who were not parties to the suit and whose vendors had not been impleaded?

Analysis: The suit had already abated as against the original owner, and the heirs who later acquired intermediary rights were not made parties when the property was added to the suit schedule. The injunction was passed against persons who were not parties to the suit, and the purchasers derived title from those heirs. An injunction binds only parties to the proceeding, and police aid cannot be used to enforce it against strangers to the suit.

Conclusion: The injunction and the consequential police-enforcement orders were not binding on the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether inclusion of the Housing Board land in the suit schedule and the partition claim were barred by the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953?

Analysis: The land stood with the heirs of the original intermediary after recognition of intermediary rights under the statute. The civil court's power was excluded by the statutory bar where the dispute concerned rights in such estate and matters already determined under the Act. In that legal setting, the amendment adding the land to the suit schedule was unsustainable and the partition claim could not proceed in respect of that property.

Conclusion: The amendment and the claim over the disputed land were barred.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, the impugned injunction-related orders were set aside insofar as they concerned the appellant's property, and the challenge to the property's inclusion in the suit was rejected in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil court cannot enforce an injunction or police-aid order against a purchaser who was not a party to the suit, and where the dispute concerns land protected by statutory intermediary rights and a specific jurisdictional bar, the court cannot validly include that land in the suit schedule or proceed against it.

---