Court No. 6 (265719) 30.06.2026 (AD 4) (S. Banerjee) CO 1982 of 2026 Ramesh Chandra Baidya Vs. Hrishikesh Sarkar Mr. Pritam Choudhury …for the petitioner Mr. Sourav Chatterjee …for the opposite party no. 1 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant praying for a direction Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court, Barasat to dispose of Title Suit No. 1511 of 2024 expeditiously. Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the opposite-party no. 1/plaintiff has impleaded the opposite-party no. 2 as the proforma defendant in the said suit. The proforma defendant in the said suit is avoiding service and for such reason progress of the suit is being delayed. He further submits that an ad interim order of injunction passed against the petitioner is being extended from time to time and the injunction application is yet to be disposed of in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already filed the written objection to the injunction application. He further submits that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff/opposite-party 2 no. 1 is also pending and the learned trial judge has fixed the next date of hearing on January 29, 2027. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no. 1 seriously disputes the submission made by Mr. Choudhury. He submits that the opposite- party no. 1 is in no way responsible for the alleged delay in the progress of the suit. He further submits that the suit has been instituted only in December, 2024. From the order-sheets appended to this civil revision application it appears that the proforma defendant is yet to be served with the summons of the suit. It further appears from the description of the opposite-party nos. 1 and 2 that they are brothers. After going through the averments made in the plaint and in the injunction application, it prima facie appears to this Court that the opposite-party no. 1 herein has sought for relief in the form of an injunction primarily against the defendant no. 1/petitioner herein. Since the petitioner has filed the written objection to the injunction application, this Court is of the considered view that the injunction application should be disposed of expeditiously. Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application under 3 Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed on February 2, 2026. At this stage Mr. Choudhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that copy of the amendment application has been served upon the petitioner only on March 27, 2026. He submits that the written objection to such application shall be filed within two weeks from date. Such submission of Mr. Choudhury is placed on record. From the order-sheets appended to this application, this Court finds that by an order dated March 27, 2026 the learned trial judge has fixed January 29, 2027 for hearing of the injunction application and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. As observed hereinbefore that the injunction was primarily prayed for against the defendant/petitioner herein and the opposite-party no. 2 has been impleaded as a proforma defendant against whom no relief has been claimed in the suit, this Court is of the considered view that there cannot be any impediment upon the learned trial judge to take up the hearing of the injunction application since the written objection to the same has already 4 been filed by the petitioner, i.e., the contesting defendant. After filing of the written objection to the amendment application it will be open to the petitioner or the opposite-party no. 1 to approach the learned trial judge for preponing the next date of hearing. If such an application is filed, the learned trial judge shall consider the same sympathetically and make an earnest endeavour to prepone the next date of hearing and shall dispose of the applications as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, considering the fact that the defendant is suffering an order of injunction. With the above observation CO 1982 of 2026 stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)