301 ss 16.06.2025 CO 1411 of 2025 Sri Sukumar Koley & Ors. Vs. Sree Sree Rakha Kali Mata Thakurani Sebayet, represented by Sebaits Sri Himadri Halder & Ors. Mr. Partha Pratim Roy Mr. K.C. Roy Mr. D. Mondal .. … for the petitioners Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Ghoshal Mr. Subhojit Mukherjee … … for the opposite parties 1.This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against the order dated 26th March, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Chandernagore, Hooghly in Title Appeal No.41 of 2024. 2.By the impugned order the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellants/opposite parties also stood allowed. 3.Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Judge dismissed the Suit upon deciding the issue Nos.4 and 5 against the opposite parties herein. He submits that the learned Judge of the 1st appellate Court while deciding an application for injunction reversed the finding of the learned trial Judge. He further submits that the opposite parties herein are not the Sebaits of the plaintiff/deity and for which they should not have been allowed to perform the daily seva puja. 4. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that in the record of rights it has been recorded that the opposite parties are the Sebaits of the plaintiff/deity and the learned Judge of the 1st appellate Court after considering the record of rights has allowed the application for injunction. He further submits that the padlock was put by the Officer-in-Charge, Tarakeswar Police Station and the learned Judge in order to allow this seva puja to be performed directed the lock and key to be removed. 5.Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. 6.After going through the judgment and decree dated 29th April, 2024 passed in Title Suit No.160 of 2021, this Court finds in the CS record of rights it has been recorded that the Suit plot is recorded in the name of Rakha Kali Mata Thakurani Sthan (Hindu sadharoner baboharer). In the record of rights it has been recorded that the suit property is for Hindu general people. 7.Learned trial Judge has recorded that the plaintiffs have not filed any record of rights to show that their 2 names have been recorded as Sebaits of the deities against the suit plot. 8.Learned Judge of the 1st appellate Court while considering the application for injunction took note of the LR record of rights and observed that the name of the predecessor of the appellants/opposite parties, i.e., Becharam Halder, Dasharati Halder, Narayan Halder, Fakir Halder, Gobindo Pada Halder, Bhaskar Halder and Bivupati Halder were recorded as sebaits. 9.After going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the dispute between the parties is whether the opposite parties are the sebaits of the said deity. 10.Since the appeal is still pending, this Court is not inclined to enter into such a dispute at this stage. It has been uniformly submitted by the learned advocates for the parties that the annual puja for the year 2025 has already been performed on 14th June, 2025 and the opposite parties are performing the daily seva puja. 11.Mr. Roy submits that in the record of rights it has been recorded that the people of the locality are entitled to offer the puja to the deity as the same is for the general people as it would be evident from the record of rights. 12.Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel submits that the general public including the 3 defendants/petitioners herein are not being obstructed from offering the puja to the deity. Such submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya is placed on record. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submits that the petitioners have performed the annual puja on 14th June, 2025 in violation of the order of injunction. The opposite parties are left free to work out their remedies in accordance with law for alleged violation of the order of injunction. 13.It has been unanimously submitted by the learned advocates for the parties that the appeal is otherwise is ready for hearing. 14.It view thereof, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be subserved if the learned Judge of the appellate Court is directed to dispose of the Title Appeal expeditiously. 15.In the light of the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parities, CO 1411 of 2025 stands disposed of requesting the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandernagar, Hooghly to take up the hearing of the appeal as early as possible and to make an endavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible but preferably by the end of December, 2025 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 16.There shall be no order as to costs. 4 (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 5