In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Sandip Kumar De F.M.A. 918 of 2026 IA No: CAN 1 of 2026 M/s. Madan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. Smt. Satyabhama Bagoria and others For the appellants : Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mrs. Rituparna Chatterjee Ms. Khushboo Choudhury Mr. Shaswat Nayek Mr. Dhruva Behety Ms. Ayasha Kedia For the respondent nos.1 and 2 : Ms. Hashnuhana Chakraborty Mr. Vinay Kumar Purohit Heard on : 14.08.2026 Judgment on : 14.08.2026 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The appeal is admitted and is being taken up for hearing in view of the brief points involved. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that it will be evident from the impugned order that the same must have adverted to 2 the facts of some different case and there was a complete misunderstanding on the part of the learned Trial Judge. 3. It is submitted that on the date of passing of the impugned order, the matter was fixed for hearing of an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for vacating an ad interim order of injunction, along with the injunction application itself. 4. The hearing was partly concluded, under the impression that the hearing would be continued on the returnable date. 5. However, subsequently, the appellants discovered that the arguments have been treated to be concluded and both the applications had been disposed of by the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel further points out that from the impugned order itself, it will be clear that the running of a ration shop by the plaintiffs have been referred to therein, which is entirely divorced from the facts of the present case, since it is nobody’s case that any ration shop is being run from the suit property in the instant case. 7. Also, we find that the order is cryptic insofar as reasoning is concerned. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondent nos.1 and 2, in her usual fairness and on instruction, concurs with the submission of the appellants to the extent that on the said date, the hearing had not been concluded and that several factual facets are involved in the 3 matter which were to be argued and to be adjudicated upon while disposing of the applications for injunction and vacating. 9. Thus, it is palpably clear that the impugned order was passed on a mistaken notion, upon confusing the facts with some other case. 10. Hence, the same is perverse and cannot be sustained. 11. FMA 918 of 2026 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order, bearing Order No.49 dated June 17, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 980 of 2022, and remanding the matter to the learned Trial Judge with a direction to dispose of afresh the application under Order XLIX Rules 1 and 2 along with the application for vacating under Order XLIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon giving adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order to the Trial Court. 12. It is made clear that the ad interim order, if any, which was subsisting on the date of the impugned order in the trial court is hereby revived, subject of course to the outcome of the aforesaid two applications. 13. This court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the learned Trial Judge will be at liberty to decide all issues independently and in accordance with law. 14. CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of. 15. There will be no order as to costs. 4 16. Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Sandip Kumar De, J.) 14th August, 2026 (AK) 09