D/L- 2 02/07/2025 Ct. No.-6 Aritra C.O. 3658 of 2024 Maniul Hauque Vs. Mojammel Hoque & Ors. Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty Ms. Mrinmoyee Roy Chowdhury …for the petitioner On the prayer of the learned advocate for the petitioner leave is granted to the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today is taken on record. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated August 14, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chanchal, District-Malda in Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2024. By the order impugned the learned judge of the Appellate Court allowed the miscellaneous appeal thereby directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. The petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No.117 of 2023 praying for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The case made out in the plaint is that originally Sajjad Mandal had 4 annas share in the suit property and his name was recorded in the RS Record of Rights 2 and his three brothers were also having 4 annas share each in the said property. The property was amicably partitioned amongst the brothers and they were possessing their respective shares. It is the further case of the petitioner that subsequently Sajjad Mandal acquired title over the entire suit property and his name was recorded in the LR khatian No.1411. After demise of Sajjad Mandal his legal heirs inherited the suit property and subsequently while they were in possession the plaintiff/petitioner herein purchased the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated March 14, 2023 being LR dag Nos.83/253 and 83/257. It is the case of the opposite parties that Sajjad Mandal and his three brothers, namely, Ujjal Mandal, Amjad Ali and Bulmajan transferred 64 2/3rd shataks out of 97 shataks in dag No.83 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. It is the further case of the defendant/opposite parties that dag No.83 became segmented in different bata plots and those were recorded in the name of several co-sharer name, Tafjul Hoque, Lulful Hoque and Mokbul Hossain in the LR Record of Rights. The opposite parties further claimed that by virtue of a sale deed dated November 6, 1940 and deed dated April 4, 1956, the predecessor-in- interest of the defendant acquired title in respect of the plot Nos.83/252, 83/253, 83/254, 83/256 and 83/257. 3 After going through the materials on record and the LR Record of Rights it cannot be said that the petitioner herein is in exclusive possession of the suit property. The learned judge of the Appellate Court was right in holding that the issue with regard to the title and possession in respect of the suit properties cannot be decided at this stage. The learned judge of the Appellate Court was right in modifying the order the learned trial judge by directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. The learned judge of the Appellate Court assigned cogent reasons in support of the ultimate conclusion. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same sitting in Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for a direction upon the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Chanchal, District-Malda to dispose of Title Suit No.117 of 2023 expeditiously. In the light of the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, CO 3658 of 2024 stands disposed of by requesting the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Chanchal, District-Malda to make an endeavour to dispose of Title Suit No.117 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible without granting any 4 unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided the suit is otherwise ready for hearing. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)