07.04.2025 Item No.3 gd/ssd FMA/137/2025 BISWANATH DEY VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. IA NO: CAN/1/2024 Mr. Amitabha Ghosh, Mr. Madan Mohan Roy ..for the Appellant. Mr. Suman Sengupta, Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick ..for the State. Mr. Aninda Lahiri, Mr. Tirthankar Dey ..for the Respondent Nos.9 to 12. 1. This intra court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order dated 25th September, 2024 in WPA 24382 of 2024. 2. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to restrain the respondents from disturbing or interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the premises in question. 3. The learned writ court had disposed of the writ petition with certain observations. The learned writ court was right in coming to the conclusion that there is no scope within the writ petition to adjudicate the rights of the parties especially when a civil suit in Title Suit No.414 of 2024 filed by the appellant/writ 2 petitioner is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur. 4. The appellant is aggrieved by the other observations which have been made by the learned Single Bench concerning the performance of Durga Puja for the year 2024. 5. It is seen that after the writ petition was disposed of, the Civil Court had passed an order of status quo in October, 2024 and the case was directed to be heard for framing of issue on 8.4.2025. Obviously this order having been passed subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition could not be subject matter of the case and it has been produced before this court for the first time. Since the Civil Court is now seized in the matter and prima facie adjudicated the rights of the parties and come to the conclusion that it is necessary to protect the possession of the plaintiff which has been prima facie shown, it is also necessary that no interference is caused to the defendants who are in possession of remaining portion of the plot no.121/376 jointly. 6. Therefore, in our view, the observations which have been made by the learned writ court concerning the Durga Puja can be adversely confined only for the Puja which was conducted during the year 2024 and not for any subsequent years. 3 7. Therefore, we dispose of the appeal by making an observation that the findings rendered by the learned Single Bench with regard to the performance of the Durga Puja is restricted only for the Puja which was already over in 2024 and cannot be referred to or taken advantage for the Puja for the year 2025 or for any subsequent years. 8. The parties are at liberty to agitate all the rights during the pending civil proceedings. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)