D/L- 15 C.O. 519 of 2026 01/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Aritra Raniganj II Vs. Sumitra Bauri & Ors. Mr. Arijit Chatterjee Dr. R.P. Motilal ….for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no.4 and is directed against the orders dated December 6, 2025 and January 16, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Additional Court at Asansol, District-Paschim Bardhaman in the Title Suit No.42 of 2025. By the order dated December 6, 2025 the defendant no.4 i.e., the Branch Manager of Canara Bank was directed to provide proper explanation to the learned court in writing as to how and to whom the service benefits of Dilip Bouri lying in the account number specified in the said order has been disbursed in spite of specific instructions of the court and failure to provide satisfactory explanation will automatically lead to taking strict action accordingly. By the order dated January 16, 2026 the learned trial judge has recorded that the defendant no.4 again prayed for time and submitted that the account number is wrong. After noting such submission the learned trial judge observed that no explanation has been provided to the 2

court in writing by the Branch Manager of the Canara Bank as to how and to whom the service benefits of Dilip Bouri lying in the account has been disbursed in spite of the specific instruction of the Court and the Branch Manager was provided one last opportunity to comply with the order no.16 dated December 6, 2025 and the defendant no.4 was also directed to provide details as to how many accounts are there in the branch in the name of Dilip Bouri as they are repeatedly stating that the account number is different. It was also observed that the failure to comply with the said order strict action will be taken. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that by an order dated August 1, 2026, the defendant no.4 was directed to appear personally before the court by the next date and to provide written explanation. After going through the impugned order dated December 6, 2025 and January 16, 2026, this Court finds that the learned trial judge only directed the defendant no.4 i.e., the Branch Manager of Canara Bank to submit an explanation as to how and to whom the service benefits of Dilip Bouri lying in an account specified in the said order has been disbursed in spite of a specific instruction passed by the court. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. At this stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the directions passed 3

by the learned trial judge by an order dated August 1, 2026, the Branch Manager of Canara Bank i.e., the defendant no.4 appeared personally before the learned trial judge today (i.e. September 1, 2026) and submitted a written explanation in compliance of the impugned orders as well as the order dated August 1, 2026. The learned advocate further submits that no order of injunction was passed against the defendant no.4. In view thereof, nothing remains to be decided in this civil revisional application. With the aforesaid observations, CO 519 of 2025 stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all points before the learned trial judge at the time of hearing. 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.)

D/L- 15 C.O. 519 of 2026 01/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Aritra Raniganj II Vs. Sumitra Bauri & Ors. Mr. Arijit Chatterjee Dr. R.P. Motilal ….for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no.4 and is directed against the orders dated December 6, 2025 and January 16, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Additional Court at Asansol, District-Paschim Bardhaman in the Title Suit No.42 of 2025. By the order dated December 6, 2025 the defendant no.4 i.e., the Branch Manager of Canara Bank was directed to provide proper explanation to the learned court in writing as to how and to whom the service benefits of Dilip Bouri lying in the account number specified in the said order has been disbursed in spite of specific instructions of the court and failure to provide satisfactory explanation will automatically lead to taking strict action accordingly. By the order dated January 16, 2026 the learned trial judge has recorded that the defendant no.4 again prayed for time and submitted that the account number is wrong. After noting such submission the learned trial judge observed that no explanation has been provided to the 2

court in writing by the Branch Manager of the Canara Bank as to how and to whom the service benefits of Dilip Bouri lying in the account has been disbursed in spite of the specific instruction of the Court and the Branch Manager was provided one last opportunity to comply with the order no.16 dated December 6, 2025 and the defendant no.4 was also directed to provide details as to how many accounts are there in the branch in the name of Dilip Bouri as they are repeatedly stating that the account number is different. It was also observed that the failure to comply with the said order strict action will be taken. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that by an order dated August 1, 2026, the defendant no.4 was directed to appear personally before the court by the next date and to provide written explanation. After going through the impugned order dated December 6, 2025 and January 16, 2026, this Court finds that the learned trial judge only directed the defendant no.4 i.e., the Branch Manager of Canara Bank to submit an explanation as to how and to whom the service benefits of Dilip Bouri lying in an account specified in the said order has been disbursed in spite of a specific instruction passed by the court. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. At this stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the directions passed 3

by the learned trial judge by an order dated August 1, 2026, the Branch Manager of Canara Bank i.e., the defendant no.4 appeared personally before the learned trial judge today (i.e. September 1, 2026) and submitted a written explanation in compliance of the impugned orders as well as the order dated August 1, 2026. The learned advocate further submits that no order of injunction was passed against the defendant no.4. In view thereof, nothing remains to be decided in this civil revisional application. With the aforesaid observations, CO 519 of 2025 stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to raise all points before the learned trial judge at the time of hearing. 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.)