19.08.2026 Sl. No.: 84 Court No.655 BM C.O. 4422 of 2025 ABUL HASAN KHAIRUL ANAM MOLLA VS OMAR FARUK MOLLA Mr. Mohinur Mallick ... for the petitioner Mr. Archisman Singh ... for the opposite party 1. The instant civil revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 17th Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas, in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2024. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted a suit before the learned Trial Court, being Title Suit No. 365 of 2019, in respect of the property described in the schedules to the plaint, comprising Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ properties. In connection with the said suit, the petitioner also took out an application praying for an interim order of injunction against the defendants. Upon consideration of the prayer, the learned Trial Court was pleased to grant an ad-interim order of injunction, though, according to the petitioner, such order was confined to the Schedule ‘B’ property. 3. The order passed by the learned Trial Court granting ad-interim injunction in respect of the Schedule ‘B’ property was thereafter challenged before the learned First 2 Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2024. The said appeal was ultimately disposed of by the learned First Appellate Court, inter-alia, observing that the Misc. Appeal stood disposed of ex parte on merits. 4. The principal grievance raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that an interim order of injunction had earlier been passed on 28.05.2019 in respect of both Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ properties. However, according to the learned Advocate, when the matter was subsequently taken up for final hearing before the learned First Appellate Court, the impugned Judgment and Order did not specifically indicate as to which of the two scheduled properties was being referred to or dealt with. It is, therefore, contended that there is an ambiguity in the impugned order as to whether the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court relates to Schedule ‘A’ property or Schedule ‘B’ property. 5. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner and has carefully perused the impugned Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2025. Upon such consideration, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the impugned Judgment and Order was confined only to the Schedule ‘B’ property or that the same suffers from any ambiguity of the nature alleged on behalf of the petitioner. 6. On a plain reading of the impugned Judgment and Order, it cannot be held that the learned First Appellate Court intended to adjudicate upon or pass an order exclusively in respect of the Schedule ‘B’ property. There is 3 nothing contained in the impugned order which would indicate that the consideration of the learned First Appellate Court was restricted only to Schedule ‘B’ property. The mere fact that the original application for interim injunction or the order of the learned Trial Court may have dealt with a particular schedule does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the final order of the learned First Appellate Court was confined to that schedule. 7. It is also relevant to note that the impugned Judgment and Order has to be read as a whole and its substance cannot be determined by isolating a particular observation or omission. On such holistic consideration of the impugned order, this Court finds no material to conclude that the learned First Appellate Court passed the impugned Judgment and Order only in respect of Schedule ‘B’ property. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order does not properly deal with both Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule ‘B’ properties is found to be without sufficient foundation. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no jurisdictional error, material irregularity or apparent infirmity in the impugned Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2025 which would warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner do not persuade this Court to take a different view. 9. Accordingly, the instant revisional application is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. 4 10. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the learned trial Court immediately. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties after payment of requisite fees. ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )