D/L- 23 16/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 3185 of 2026 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Audesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr. Mr. Anirban Roy ….for the petitioner Ms. Jyoti Rauth Mr. Bhaskar Dwivedi Mr. Prashant Shekar Pandey Ms. Yamini Tripathi ….for the opposite party no.2 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no.2 and is directed against an order dated August 7, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Sealdah in Title Suit No.5 of 2025. By the order impugned, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the instant suit for partition was filed in respect of the properties mentioned in schedule ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. He further submits that in respect of the property mentioned in schedule ‘D’ of the partition suit, petitioner filed two suits for eviction of the plaintiffs-opposite parties in respect of the properties which is comprised within schedule ‘D’ property of the partition suit. He submits that since the said eviction suits have been decreed in favour of the defendant no.2 i.e. the petitioner herein, the schedule ‘D’ property should be struck off from the suit property in the partition suit. 2 Heard the learned advocate for the opposite parties on such submission. Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of the Civil Procedure states that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any matter in any pleading which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise an abuse of process of the Court. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would strenuously contend that including properties under schedule ‘D’ of the partition suit amounts to an abuse of process of Court. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, however, in his usual fairness, submits that an appeal is pending from an eviction decree passed in the suit. Since an appeal has been preferred against an eviction decree, it cannot be said that the eviction decree has already attained finality. That apart, the issue as to whether the properties mentioned in the partition suit including the schedule ‘D’ property is an undivided property of the parties to the suit has to be considered and decided at the time of trial of the suit for partition. It is well open for the petitioner to raise the plea that the property in schedule ‘D’ of the suit for partition is not a joint property and the same is the exclusive property of the defendant no.2/petitioner and 3 the rights of the petitioner in respect of the schedule ‘D’ property has been declared by a competent court of law. Passing of an eviction decree which is under challenge in an appeal cannot attract the provisions of Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it does not appear to this Court that any portion of the pleadings is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. Whether a decree can be passed in the suit for partition in respect of schedule ‘D’ property is the subject matter of trial and the same cannot be decided at this stage. The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial judge was right in holding that the defendant no.2 shall not be prejudiced in any way if schedule ‘D’ remains intact till the adjudication of the suit. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. At this stage the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the learned trial judge be directed to dispose the injunction application expeditiously. CO 3185 of 2026 stands disposed of without interfering with the order impugned and by requesting the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Sealdah to make an endeavour to dispose of the injunction application filed in Title Suit No.5 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible 4 without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinbefore are only for the purpose of supporting the ultimate conclusion of this order and the same shall not prejudice the parties either in the suit for the partition or in the pending appeal against the eviction decree. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)