Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : 1. The instant first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order dated 19th September, 2016 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st Court, Howrah in Title Suit No. 107 of 2016 at instance of the defendant/appellant. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and partition against the defendant in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed that they are the absolute owners of the ‘B’ schedule property. They further claimed that ‘A’ schedule property is the joint property belonging to the parties. The plaintiffs claimed partition in respect of the ‘A’ schedule property. After filing the said suit, the plaintiffs prayed for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant from disturbing their joint possession in the suit property. An ad interim order of injunction was also sought for in similar term. The learned Trial Judge passed an ad interim order of injunction on 14th March, 2016 directing both the parties to maintain status quo as on that day in respect of the nature and character of the suit property and the possession of the parties therein and transfer of ‘A’ schedule property as mentioned in the injunction application till 28th April, 2016. 3. After receipt of the notice relating to the said injunction proceeding, the defendant appeared in the said suit and filed objection against the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction stating therein that the plaintiffs have no title in the ‘A’ schedule property. The defendant also claimed that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. The defendant claimed his absolute title in the ‘A’ schedule property. He claimed that he is in executive possession in the suit property. 4. The plaintiffs also filed their reply to the said affidavit filed by the defendant, denying the allegations made out by the defendant in the said affidavit. 5. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge made the ad interim injunction passed on 14th March, 2016, absolute mechanically without considering the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents filed by them in course of hearing of this appeal. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the impugned order is absolutely a non-speaking order which cannot be retained on record. 7. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the impugned order is absolutely a non-speaking order which cannot be retained on record. 7. We thus, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction on merit by passing a speaking and reasoned order in support of his conclusion. 8. Before parting with, we make it clear that while disposing of this appeal, we have not considered the rival claims of the parties with regard to their claim for title and/or possession in the suit property. 9. As such, the learned Trial Judge is absolutely free to decide the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction on its own merit and according to his own wisdom. 10. It is made clear that ad interim order of injunction which was passed by the learned Trial Judge, will continue till the end of January, 2017 within which the learned Trial Court is required to dispose of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. 11. We further make it clear that in the event the learned Trial Court feels any difficulty in disposing of the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction within the time as fixed hereinabove, the learned Trial Judge will extend the interim order for a limited period and will dispose of the application for temporary injunction before the extended order looses its force. 12. Both the appeal and the application are thus, disposed of. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.