28.07.2026 Sl. No. 18 Ct No. 5 SG WPA 16803 of 2026 Sankari Das Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal, Mr. Tapas Paul, Mrs. Riya Paul, Ms. Tithi Sarkar. …for the petitioner Mr. Deb Kumar Chandra, Ms. Megha Sarkar. …for the State Mr. Radhasyam Maity, Mr. Manoranjan Jana. …for respondent nos. 5 to 8 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. By presenting this writ petition, inter alia, petitioner has prayed for implementation of ad interim order of injunction dated 22nd December, 2025 passed on Title Suit No. 340 of 2025. It is submitted by the learned advocate representing the petitioner that in spite of directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of suit property for a limited period, same is not adhered to by private respondents being defendants therein. 3. State respondents and private respondents are represented by learned advocates who have opposed this writ petition on the ground that issue involved in this writ petition is civil in nature. 2 4. Civil Court vide order dated 22nd December, 2025 passed ex-parte ad interim order of injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of suit property. Right of the parties is not even decided at the interim stage by the said ad interim order dated 22nd December, 2025 as civil court did not specify right of the parties on the date of passing ad interim order of injunction in connection with the suit property. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 2683 (Sri Soumitra Bandopadhyay & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). It was decided in Soumitra Bandopadhyay (supra) if right of the parties even at the interim stage is not decided and there is an ad interim order of injunction passed by the civil court to maintain status quo, writ court ought not interfere if prayer is made in the writ petition seeking implementation of the said order of status quo. 5. Hence, the present writ petition is not interfered with and same stands dismissed. 6. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to take steps in accordance with law. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)