Sl.23 14.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3129 of 2026 Alauddin Molla -versus- Nabiran Bibi & Ors. Mr. Moloy Roy Mr. Srimanta Ray ..for the petitioner Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that though caveat was lodged by the petitioner but an ad interim order has been passed without serving any copy of the injunction application upon the learned advocate for the caveator. In support of such contention Mr. Roy refers to page 26 -29 of the civil revisional application. However, from the impugned order dated 25th August, 2026 this Court finds that the learned trial judge has noted that there is “no caveat” note of the sheristadar. As to whether the caveat was lodged or not or the same was in form or not cannot be decided by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For such reason, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to take out an appropriate application before the learned trial judge pointing out such fact. C.O. 3129 of 2026 stands disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to take out an appropriate application before the learned trial judge ventilating his 2 grievance that the impugned order was passed without serving a copy of the injunction application though a caveat was lodged prior to the date of passing of the injunction order. If such an application is filed, the learned trial judge shall consider the same considering the urgency involved in this civil revisional application. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)