AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
16 paragraphs · 277 wordsThe plaintiff in Title Suit No. 24 of 2002 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24 Parganas prays for
expeditious disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in connection with the said suit.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the said application has not yet been disposed of but the ad-interim order of injunction has been extended from
time to time. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the suit has been dragging since 2002 and there is no progress at all. It is submitted
that all parties filed their written statement but written objections to the injunction applications have not yet been filed. Record reveals that there are
two injunction applications pending before the learned Court below.
Under such circumstances, this revisional application is disposed of directing the learned Court below to dispose of the pending injunction applications
as expeditiously as possible preferably the next date fixed upon affording one opportunity to the opposite parties to file their written objection in the
meantime.
Upon disposal of the injunction applications, this Court trusts that the suit of 2002 shall be disposed of expeditiously preferably within a year from the
disposal of the injunction applications.
The petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this revisional application along with a server copy of this order upon the opposite parties within a week
from date.
This revisional application is disposed of.
There will be however no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties on priority basis, if the same is applied for.
