Items- 50 & 52. sg 28-08-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2912 of 2026 Swasti Pada Chatterjee Versus Trinath Chatterjee & Ors. And CO 2915 of 2026 Swasti Pada Chatterjee Versus Trinath Chatterjee & Ors. Mr. Pradip Majumder Ms. Piyali Mukherjee Mr. Bratin Kr. Dey Mr. Sanjoy Biswas Mr. Pulak Mondal …for the petitioner Mr. Anubhav Singh …for the opposite party no.1 Affidavits of service filed in Court in both the applications are taken on record. These applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are at the instance of the plaintiff and are directed against the order both dated 8th July, 2026 in Misc. Appeal nos. 90 and 91 of 2026. The petitioner filed the Title Suit being no. 351 of 2026 and obtained an ad interim order of injunction. On an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the opposite party no.1, the ad interim order of injunction was stayed for a limited period and such order of stay was being extended from time to time. Being aggrieved by the order of stay of operation of the ad interim order of injunction and the mechanical extension of the order of stay, the petitioner preferred two Misc. Appeals being Misc. Appeal Nos. 90 and 91 of 2026. Mr. Dey, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the misc. appeals are still pending. He submits that as a result of pendency of these misc. appeals, 2 the petitioner is being prevented from moving the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned trial judge. The learned advocate for the opposite party no.1, submits that the injunction application and the application under Order 39 Rule 4 are otherwise ready for hearing. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the learned trial judge is directed to take up the hearing of the injunction application and the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dispose of the same within a specified time frame. At this stage the learned advocates for both the parties uniformly submits that 7th September, 2026 has been fixed for hearing of the application for injunction. They further submit that the said applications are otherwise ready for hearing. In the light of submission of the learned advocates for the respective parties, these civil revisional applications are disposed of by requesting the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Paschim Medinipur to take up the hearing of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the next date fixed i.e. 7th September, 2026 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 3 It is, however, made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim and counter claim of the respective parties and all points are left open to be decided by the learned trial judge in accordance with law. In view of this order, nothing survives to be decided in the pending miscellaneous appeals. Petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate steps in the said appeals. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisites formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)