Court No. 6 (265719) 25.09.2025 (AD 20) (S. Banerjee) CO 3538 of 2025 Sri Tapash Dey & Ors. Vs. Debasish Kumar Dey Mr. Prantick Ghosh Mr. Prasad Bhattacharyya …for the petitioners Mr. Rabindra Narayan Dutta Mr. Sibashish Ghosh Mr. Soham Banerjee …for the opposite party The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated August 2, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Barrackpore in Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 2025 by virtue of which an order of injunction was passed which is to operate till the disposal of the suit. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the injunction application is still pending for hearing before the learned trial judge and on a misc. appeal being preferred by the opposite party against an order vacating the ad interim order of injunction, the learned judge of the appellate court passed an order of injunction which is to operate till the disposal of the suit. Heard Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties. He submits that the ad interim order of injunction stood vacated as two dates were wrongly fixed by the learned trial judge and since the petitioners were not aware of the date when the ad interim injunction stood vacated, the opposite party could not take any step on such date. After going through the impugned order this court finds that the learned judge of the appellate court after going through the order-sheet of the learned trial judge observed that there were certain anomalies with regard to the orders passed by the learned trial judge and was pleased to allow the misc. appeal. There is substance in the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that an order of injunction could not have been passed which is to operate till the disposal of the suit as the application for temporary injunction is still pending. It has been uniformly submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties that the applications for temporary injunction and the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code are otherwise ready for hearing. 2 Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that there are several other interlocutory applications which are also pending. Considering the fact that other interlocutory applications, including an application for temporary injunction and the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code are pending, this court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be sub-served if the learned trial judge is directed to dispose of the interlocutory applications expeditiously. The order impugned in the civil revision application restraining the defendants and their men and agents from ousting the plaintiff from the suit property without due process of law shall operate till disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code along with the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The order impugned stands modified only to the extent indicated hereinbefore. Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Barrackpore is requested to take up the hearing of the application for temporary injunction along with the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code on the next date fixed and to make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously 3 as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Barrackpore is further requested to dispose of the other interlocutory applications expeditiously. It will be open to the learned trial judge to decide as to which of the applications shall be taken up first. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 4