D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) This appeal will be heard. Let the records be called for. Notice need not be issued since Mr. Roy appears on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) When this application was being opposed by Mr. Roy, virtually he had addressed on the merit of the appeal. Mr. Roychowdhury when contesting the same had also addressed the Court on merit of the appeal itself. Therefore, by consent of parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list for hearing.
(3.) It appears that in a suit for partition, the respondents had filed an application for injunction. Though this application for injunction was pending for a long time but no interim order was granted for some reason or other. The appellant filed an application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) before the learned District Judge, whereupon the records were called for by the learned District Judge. C. 0.1761 of 2003 was moved by the respondent before this Court. This was disposed of on 20th August, 2003. In the said order it was directed that the learned District Judge may pass appropriate order considering the application for injunction made by the respondents. On 25th August, 2003 when the application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure was fixed, the appellant filed an application for adjournment. This was objected to by the respondents. After hearing the parties, the application for adjournment was allowed. However, the learned District Judge had directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the possession, nature and character of the suit property till the hearing of the application for injunction and fixed the application for injunction for hearing on 20th September, 2003. This is the order, which has since been appealed against.;