D/L- 27 14/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 3141 of 2026 Bishwanath Bhattacharyya & Ors. Vs. Kalighat Nepal Bhattacharjee Street Club, rept. by its Secretary Mr. Avijit Bose Mr. Pradyuman Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sannidhya Datta ….for the petitioners Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharyya Ms. Sudeshna Basu Thakur Mr. Mritunjoy Halder ….for opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order being No.7 dated September 3, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court at Alipore in Miscellaneous Appeal No.196 of 2026. By the order impugned the learned judge of the appellate court allowed the opposite party-club to perform celebration of the Puja in the suit property without causing any inconvenience to the neighbours and local inhabitants and public in general. The opposite party-club filed a suit for declaration that the club has a legal right to peacefully possess and occupy the schedule mentioned suit property without any interference of the defendants and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents not to create any illegal acts over the schedule mentioned suit property and/or not to demolish or obstruct the schedule mentioned suit property and also 2 restrain the plaintiff and its men and agents from free ingress and egress of the schedule mentioned suit property in any manner whatsoever. In connection with the said suit the opposite party-club filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs and their men and agents not to create any illegal acts over the schedule mentioned suit property and/or not to disturb or obstruct the schedule mentioned suit property and also not to restrain the plaintiff and its men and agents from free ingress and egress of the schedule mentioned suit property in any manner whatsoever. An ad interim order of injunction was also sought for by filing the said application. The learned trial judge upon a contested hearing rejected the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by an order dated July 15, 2026. Being aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party- club preferred a miscellaneous appeal being No.196 of 2026 and the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court at Alipore, by the order impugned, granted permission in favour of the opposite party-club to perform celebration of Puja in the schedule mentioned suit property. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned judge of the appellate court without considering the fact that the learned trial judge by a reasoned order rejected application for temporary 3 injunction passed an interim order granting permission to the opposite party-club to perform Durga Puja by fixing a date of hearing of the miscellaneous appeal on October 14, 2026. He further submits that the learned judge of the appellate court granted the ultimate relief to the opposite party-club by keeping the miscellaneous appeal pending. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party-club submits that considering the urgency involved in the instant matter and also the fact that the opposite party-club is performing Durga Puja for the last 46 years the learned Judge of the appellate court have only allowed the club to perform Durga Puja subject to obtaining necessary permission and order from the competent authorities. He submits that since the club is performing the Durga Puja for a pretty long time, the order impugned should not be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. The suit property as described in the schedule of the plaint suggests that it is a piece and parcel of Durga Bedi measuring about 195 sq.ft. more or less situated at ground floor of premises No.10/9, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street and 10/10, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street. The suit property is butted and bounded on the southern side by premises No. 10/10, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street and in the schedule it has been described as the (defendants portion). 4 In paragraph 20 of the plaint it is the case made out by the club that they requested the defendants/petitioners on several occasions verbally to make amicably settlement amongst themselves by metes and bounds but the petitioners did not agree for the amicable settlement of the suit property which is making it very much inconvenient for the plaintiff-club to enjoy and possess the suit property. The petitioners have claimed that one Santi Bhattacharyya purchased the land measuring about 4 cottahs 4 chittaks 13 square feet of premises no. 10/10 by virtue of two registered deeds of conveyance dated 17.01.1976 and 24.01.1980 and after her demise on 10.12.2013, petitioners have become the absolute owners of premises no. 10/10 by virtue of inheritance. The learned trial judge recorded a prima facie finding that the opposite party-club was registered only on May 14, 2007 and obtained permission/provisional permission latter from various authorities for holding Durga Puja, Laxmi Puja and Kali Puja festival at premises No. 10/9, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street, Kolkata-700026. The learned trial judge also recorded a prima facie finding that the defendants/petitioners are the absolute owners and are in possession in respect of premises No. 10/10, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street, Kolkata-700026. The learned trial judge further recorded a prima facie finding that the plaintiff/opposite party has not obtained any permission 5 to organize Durga Puja over premises No. premises No. 10/10, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street, Kolkata-700026. The learned trial judge further observed that the plaintiff failed to produce any document relating to Durga Bedi or mandap at premises no. 10/9. After the Miscellaneous Appeal No.196 of 2026 was transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court at Alipore, this Court finds that September 2, 2026 was fixed for further hearing and orders in respect of an interim order. On September 2, 2026, the learned judge of the appellate court fixed September 3, 2026 for further hearing. However, this Court finds that the learned judge of the appellate court by an order dated September 3, 2026 granted permission in favour of the opposite party- club to perform celebration of Puja in the schedule mentioned suit property as per the schedule of the injunction application without causing any convenience to the neighbours and local inhabitants and public in general. As pointed out hereinbefore that the plaintiff/opposite party-club while describing the suit property has specifically admitted that the premises No. 10/10, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street is the defendants’ portion. The learned trial judge recorded prima facie that the defendants/petitioners are the owners and in possession over premises No. premises No. 10/10, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street. 6 By the order impugned the learned judge of the appellate court allowed the opposite party-club to perform Durga Puja in the suit property meaning thereby in a portion of premises No. 10/10, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street which is admittedly the property of the petitioners as indicated in the schedule of the plaint. When the learned trial judge after considering the materials produced by the respective parties rejected the prayer for injunction in respect of premises No. 10/10, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street, this Court is of the considered view that the learned judge of the appellate court without assigning any reasons could not have allowed the opposite party-club to organize and perform Puja on premises No. premises No. 10/10, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street. The effect of the order impugned amounts to reversing and/or modifying the order passed by the learned judge of the appellate court and granting the final relief at the interim stage without assigning reason which is impermissible. It is well-settled that in order to modify or reverse the findings of the court of first instance, the appellate court ought to have considered the reasons assigned by the learned trial judge and then assign its reasons for coming to a different conclusion while reversing and/or modifying the order of the trial judge. When the plaintiff/opposite party club failed to satisfy even prima facie that they have any right over premises no. 10/10, the learned Judge of the Appellate Court could 7 not have permitted the opposite party club to perform Durga Puja celebration on premises no. 10/10. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court failed to perform its duty of an appellate court. The order impugned in bereft of any reasons. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the order dated 03.09.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge 12th Court at Alipore is set aside. The learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court at Alipore is requested to take up the hearing of the Miscellaneous Appeal No.196 of 2026 and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Needless to mention that if any interlocutory application is pending or may be filed by any of the party, the same shall also be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of supporting the ultimate conclusion arrived at by this Court in this order. The learned judge of the appellate court while deciding the miscellaneous appeal or any application filed in connection thereto shall decide the same being uninfluenced by any observations made hereinbefore and in accordance with law. Accordingly, CO 3141 of 2026 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 8 All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)