Uma Dutta v. Tapan Naha

02.12.2021 SL No.45 Court No.8 (gc) FMA 490 of 2017 With CAN 1 of 2017 (Old No: CAN 445 of 2017) Uma Dutta Vs.

Tapan Naha (Via Video Conference) The appellant is not represented nor any accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the appellant. It appears from the record that the interim order granted on 28th February, 2017 expired long back and the record does not reveal that the said order was extended after the expiry of eight weeks from the date of the order that is 28th February, 2017.

The appeal is arising out of an order refusing to pass an ad-interim order of injunction. We feel that the application for injunction filed before the Trial Court needs to be heard as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal and the connected application by directing the learned 6th Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Alipore to dispose of the injunction application as expeditiously as possible preferably within twelve weeks from the date of completion of pleadings in relation to the said injunction application if it had not yet been disposed of in the meantime.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned 6th Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Alipore for compliance.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. (Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)