Item- 36. sg 23-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 3312 of 2026 Mufti Mohammad Yakub Versus Mufti Mohammad Esa Mr. Mukteswar Maity Sk. Md Ismail Sk Md Jayed Mr. Aktar Hossin Ms. Monika Sarkar …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated 19th June, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 19 of 2010. By the order impugned, the application for repairing work of the suit premises stood rejected. Mr. Maity, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition and requires urgent repairing work. After going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the petitioner did not produce any materials before the learned trial judge as to the present condition of the residential property which is alleged to be in occupation of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that after passing of the preliminary decree, the final decree proceeding have commenced and 2nd September, 2026 was fixed for cross- examination of the learned Partition Commissioner and for further proceeding. Taking note of the fact that the suit for partition is pending from the year 2010 and a date has already been fixed for cross-examination of the Learned Partition Commissioner, this Court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be sub-served if the learned trial 2 judge is directed to dispose of the partition suit expeditiously. The learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application for repairing at the fag end of the partition suit. That apart, no material was placed before the learned trial judge as to the present condition of the suit property. This civil revision application stands disposed of without interfering with the order impugned and by requesting the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court, Howrah to dispose of the Title Suit No. 19 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of three months from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that an application filed by the petitioner may not be disposed of. There is no basis for such apprehension as the suit along with all interlocutory applications shall be disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)