01.09.2026 Ct. No. 655 S.L. No.93 AMR CO 183 of 2026 Tulsi Ranjan Das -vs- Maitreyi Das Dr. Siddhartha Goswami Mr. Kuntal Goswami Ms. Upasana Shaw …for the Petitioner 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. 2. The instant civil revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Title Suit No. 143 of 2023. 3. The aforesaid suit has been instituted by the plaintiff/respondent seeking, inter alia, a declaration of his right, title and interest in respect of the suit property described in the schedule to the plaint and a consequential decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from interfering with the plaintiff’s alleged right, title, possession and enjoyment of the said property. 4. The defendant/petitioner entered appearance in the suit and is contesting the proceeding by filing the written statement as well as written objection to the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff/respondent. 5. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that, at the initial stage of the 2 proceeding, the learned Trial Court was pleased to pass an ex parte ad interim order of injunction on 01.03.2023. According to the petitioner, the said interim order has thereafter been extended from time to time by the learned Trial Court without finally adjudicating the application for temporary injunction on its merits. It is further contended that such continuation of an ex parte interim order, without consideration of the objections raised by the defendant, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner has already entered appearance and is contesting the claim of the plaintiff. 6. It is also submitted that the plaintiff/respondent had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order of temporary injunction. The petitioner filed a written objection to the said application on 10th August, 2023, thereby placing on record its defence and objections to the prayer for injunction. Despite the filing of such objection, the said application for temporary injunction has not yet been finally heard and adjudicated by the learned Trial Court. 7. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and having regard to the materials placed before this Court, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner is essentially with regard to the continued pendency of the application for temporary injunction and 3 continuation of the interim order without final adjudication of the said application. 8. An order of temporary injunction, particularly an ex parte ad interim order, is essentially interlocutory in nature and is intended to operate as a protective measure pending consideration of the substantive prayer for injunction. Once the opposite party enters appearance and files an objection, the Court is expected to consider the application for temporary injunction on its own merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides. Continued extension of an interim order without consideration of the application on merits is ordinarily not conducive to the expeditious and effective adjudication of the rights of the parties. The purpose of an interlocutory order is to preserve the subject matter of the litigation until the Court is in a position to decide the interim relief; it should not, by repeated extension, operate as a substitute for adjudication of the application itself. 9. At the same time, this Court is not inclined, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to express any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties or on the entitlement of either party to an order of temporary injunction. Such questions are required to be considered by the learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the pleadings, documents and other materials available before it. Any observation on the merits at this stage may prejudice either party and, therefore, the learned Trial 4 Court should decide the interlocutory application independently and strictly in accordance with law. 10. In view of the fact that the defendant/petitioner has already filed its written objection on 10th August, 2023 and the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is still awaiting adjudication, this Court considers it appropriate to issue a limited direction for early disposal of the said application. 11. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is requested to take up and dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, preferably within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties and upon consideration of the respective pleadings, objections and materials on record. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application for temporary injunction or on the respective rights and contentions of the parties. The learned Trial Court shall decide the said application independently, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant civil revisional application, being C.O. 183 of 2026, stands disposed of. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below forthwith for information and necessary compliance. 5 15. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on payment of requisite fees. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)