20.08.2026 Court No.655 DL/Item No.–84 [Milan] CO 4508 of 2025 CHANDRANI ROY VS CHHANDA GHOSH & ORS. Mr. Kamal Krishna Pathak, Mr. Kaustav Seal ….for the Petitioner 1. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is present. 2. This revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court. It appears from Order No. 21 dated 18.11.2025 that the learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the matter, fixed the date for passing the order. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. However, upon being called upon to explain the precise nature of the grievance against the order impugned, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner fails to demonstrate as to what jurisdictional error, illegality, perversity or material irregularity has been committed by the learned Trial Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mere fixation of a date for passing an order, by itself, does 2 not disclose any such jurisdictional infirmity so as to justify interference in the present civil revisional jurisdiction. 4. Having regard to the nature of the order impugned and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that no ground has been made out warranting exercise of the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revisional application, therefore, appears to be devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the instant revisional application, being C.O. 4508 of 2025, is hereby dismissed. 6. Consequently, application, if any, filed in connection with this case is also dismissed. 7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties after payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)