Item- A- 228. sg 22-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 1831 of 2026 Ila Mondal Versus General Public of Mandundu Dakshinpara Locality, represented by Amiya Baran Ghosh & Ors. [ Mr. Ayan Banerjee Ms. Debjani Sengupta …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No. 79 dated 11th May, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly in connection with Title Suit No. 249 of 2016. By order impugned, the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the opposite parties, stood allowed. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties have disputed the title of the petitioner in respect of the property in question and considering the nature of the dispute raised by the opposite parties in the written statement, local investigation could not have been directed to be conducted. Petitioner has filed a suit for ejectment of the trespassers and for recovery of khas possession and mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction of chala from the A-1 schedule property including the image of a Deity. A rough sketch map identifying the A schedule property and A-1 schedule property has been appended to the plaint where the A-1 schedule property is described as “towards the middle portion 2 of the northern side of the A schedule property measuring about 10’ft x 8’ft upon which a temporary shed is made. After considering the nature of the disputes involved in the suit and also that the petitioner has sought for a mandatory injunction for removal of a construction over A-1 schedule property, there is a dispute as to identification, location and measurement of the portion from where the alleged construction is sought to be removed by way of mandatory injunction. For the purpose of adjudication of such a dispute, local investigation under order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is necessary. The learned trial judge, after noting the provisions of the Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code assigned cogent reasons for allowing such application. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the hearing of the suit be expedited. Taking note of the fact that the suit is pending from the year 2016, this civil revisional application stands disposed of without interfering with the order impugned and by requesting the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly to make an endeavour to dispose of the Title Suit no. 249 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12th months from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 3 Mr. Baneree may be justified in arguing that since the order appointing the Commissioner has been challenged, the cost has not been deposited within the time limit indicated in the order impugned. Time to deposit cost is extended till the period of two weeks from the receipt of the server copy of this order. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)