Item- A-3. sg 07-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2889 of 2026 Sudarshan Roy & Anr. Versus Tumpa Roy Mr. Purnasish Gupta Mr. Mukul Kumar Mitra …for the petitioners Mr. BIswarup Biswas Mrs. Atreyee De (Ganguly) …for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the husband and one daughter of the deceased and is directed against an order being No.10 dated 4th June, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court no. 3, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in Misc. Appeal NO. 65 of 2024. The opposite party filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act praying for issuance of succession certificate in respect of 1/3rd share of the petitioner in respect of the debts and securities standing in the name of Neena Roy, since deceased. In the said proceeding, the opposite party filed an application praying for an order of injunction restraining the petitioners from withdrawing any amount standing in the name of the said deceased. The learned trial judge after contested hearing passed an ad interim order of injunction restraining the petitioners from withdrawing the debts and securities as described in the schedule of the injunction petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal no. 65 of 2024 which 2 stood dismissed by the impugned order. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the debts and securities as described in the schedule of the injunction application, are not the debts and securities owned by the deceased. He submits that the petitioner no.1 has excessive right, title and interest in respect of the debts and securities as mentioned in the schedule of the injunction application. He further submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the opposite party has 1/3rd share in the debts and securities left behind by the deceased Neena Roy. Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that the debts and securities lying in the bank in the form of fixed deposits have been made from the income of the deceased as her husband, namely, Sudarshan Roy did not have any income of his own. He submits that the mode of operation of the said fixed deposits are “either or survivor”. This Court is not inclined to enter into the aforesaid dispute at this stage. The learned Judges of the trial court as well as the appeal court were right in passing an order of injunction as the succession certificate proceeding may become infructuous if the debts and securities are distributed, pending decision in the succession certificate proceeding. Refusal to pass an injunction would result in multiplicity of proceeding. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that interest of 3 justice would be sub-served if a direction is passed to dispose of the succession certificate proceeding as expeditiously as possible. This civil revisional application stands disposed of without interfering with the order impugned and by requesting the learned District Delegate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas to dispose of Act XXXIX Case No. 116 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the claims and counter claims made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and all points are left open to be decided at the appropriate stage. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisites formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)