D/L- 14 21/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 3212 of 2026 Smt. Sumitra Mahato Vs. Chittaranjan Desmukh & Anr. Ms. Sulekha Mitra Mr. Manas Kumar Das ….for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no.1 and is directed against a judgment and order dated August 6, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Additional Court at Purulia in Misc. Appeal No.3 of 2026. Ms. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that though a caveat was lodged but without serving any copy upon the caveator an ad interim order of injunction was passed. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal and the learned judge of the appellate Court dismissed the said miscellaneous appeal. Ms. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 148A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacating the ad interim order of injunction which also stood rejected by the learned trial judge by an order dated January 19, 2026. After going through the order sheets appended to this application this Court finds that when the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of the Civil Procedure was taken up for hearing for consideration of 2 the prayer for ad interim order of injunction the learned trial judge took note of the report of the Sherestadar that there is a caveat pending since June 11, 2025 filed by the defendant no.1/petitioner herein. The learned trial judge specifically recorded that there is no scope to grant any ad interim order of injunction against the defendant no.1 without hearing her. The plaintiff/opposite party prayed for injunction against the defendant no.2, who did not lodge any caveat and the learned trial judge after considering the materials on record passed an ad interim order of injunction against the defendant no.2 in the form of status quo. It is not in dispute that the defendant no.2, who has suffered an order of injunction did not challenge the injunction order by preferring any miscellaneous appeal. On the other hand, the defendant no.1, against whom no ad interim order of injunction was passed preferred an a miscellaneous appeal and the learned judge of the appellate court dismissed the said miscellaneous appeal and challenging the said order the defendant no.1 has approached this Court. After going through the order passed by the learned trial judge as well as learned judge of the appellate court, this Court finds that no ad interim order of injunction was passed against the defendant no.1. Thus, the defendant no.1 cannot be said to be a person aggrieved against the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned trial judge against the defendant no.2 as well as dismissal of 3 the miscellaneous appeal. The learned trial judge after noting that the ad interim order of injunction has been passed against the defendant no.2 and not against the defendant no.1 was right in rejecting the petition under Section 148A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the defendant no.1/petitioner herein. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned judge of the appellate court dismissing the miscellaneous appeal as well as the learned trial judge rejecting the application under Section 148A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Additional Court at Purulia is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the injunction application as expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity to the defendant no.1 to file a written objection, if not already filed, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. Accordingly, CO 3212 of 2026 stands disposed of. 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.)