A-854 13.08.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 665 of 2026 Smt. Uma Samanta & Ors. -versus- Narendranath Adak & Ors. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee Mr. Parikshit Lakhotia Mr. Siddharth Singh ..for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against a judgement and order dated 16th December, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Arambagh, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 07 of 2023 affirming the order being no. 2 dated January 31, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Arambagh in Title Suit No. 13 of 2023. By the order dated 31st January, 2023 the prayer for ad interim injunction stood refused by the learned trial judge and being aggrieved by such order the petitioners preferred miscellaneous appeal which stood dismissed by the order impugned. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned trial judge after arriving at a finding that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case to go for trial did not pass any order 2 of injunction. He submits that the appellate court also failed to appreciate such aspect of the matter. Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that the court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party. Thus ad interim order of injunction can be passed before issuing a notice upon the opposite party only if there is urgency with regard to grant of injunction. The learned trial judge after observing that the prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiffs/petitioners arrived at a specified finding that there was no urgency for passing an ad interim order of injunction and directed the petitioners to issue notice upon the opposite parties. The appellate court also refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial judge. The refusal of the prayer for ad interim order of injunction by the learned trial judge was on 31st January, 2023 and the petitioners are without any order of injunction till this date. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the learned trial judge should be directed to dispose of the application for injunction expeditiously. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. 3 C.O. 665 of 2026 stands disposed of by requesting the learned trial judge to make an endeavour to dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided the injunction application is otherwise ready for hearing. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)