This appeal was dismissed at the hearing stage for lacking maintainability under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC, rejecting the appellant's contention that findings on injunction application prejudice the merits.
The appeal was dismissed at the stage of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 866 of 2018
Appellant :- Sita Ram Respondent :- Dev Prakash and others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Singh, Madhusudan Dikshit
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
ad-interim injunction application are of no consequences and cannot be looked into for any purpose since that cannot be treated as expression of opinion on merits of case. Therefore, this apprehension on the part of learned counsel for appellant is without any basis.
41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 PS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present appeal presents a maintainable case under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC for interfering with the impugned order rejecting interim injunction.
Whether findings recorded in an order under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC regarding prima facie case can be treated as a final expression of opinion on merits.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sita Ram
Dev Prakash
Sudhir Agarwal
Shashi Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
