Dismissed

Madhusudan Dey v. Nilmoni Saha & Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Nov 2021FMA/3/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the refusal of an ad interim injunction in a partition suit. It held no illegality existed due to lack of extreme urgency but directed the lower court to dispose of the application after notice within three months.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; direction to trial court to dispose of injunction application after notice within three months.

Madhusudan Dey Vs Nilmoni Saha & Ors. — Specific Performance | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

16.11.2021 F. M. A. 3 of 2021 s/l.26

¶2

pk Madhusudan Dey Vs.

¶3

Nilmony Saha and others

¶4

Mr. Rabindranath Mahato, Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray

¶5

… for the appellant.

¶6

Order dated 27.01.2020 passed in Title Suit No. 05 of 2020 refusing ad interim order of injunction has been assailed before us.

¶7

Appellant-plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and sought for injunction upon the defendants not to transfer the suit property. The trial court after observing a prima facie case is made out directed issuance of notice upon the defendants and fixed the matter for hearing of the injunction application. Recording that there is no extreme urgency, ad interim order of injunction was refused.

¶8

Learned lawyer appearing for the appellant submits that the trial court erred in refusing ad interim order of injunction while observing a prima facie case is made out.

¶9

While considering a prayer for ex-parte ad interim injunction, the Court in addition to prima facie case must consider whether a case of extreme urgency justifying such order is made out. Materials placed before us do not show that there is any immediate apprehension of transfer of suit property by the respondents.

¶10

¶11

Thus, we are of the opinion there is no illegality in refusal of ex parte ad interim order of injunction. However, it is open to the court below to consider the all aspects of the matter including balance of convenience and inconvenience of the parties in a suit for partition at the time of hearing of injunction application.

¶12

Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, we request the trial court to dispose of injunction application after due notice to the respondents, who shall file their written objections, if any, to the injunction application within a fortnight of receipt of such notice and the injunction application shall be disposed of preferably within three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, F. M. A. 3 of 2021 is disposed of.

¶14

In view of disposal of the appeal, connected application, if any, is also disposed of.

¶15

There will be no order as to costs.

¶16

(Bivas Pattanayak) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Madhusudan Dey v. Nilmoni Saha & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudan Dey v. Nilmoni Saha & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murshida Begum Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Sahanaj Begum Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Reetoja Taj Vs State of West Bengal

Ashutosh Roy Vs Kishore Roy & Ors.

Mrinal Kanti Bandyopadhyay and Ors. Vs Bikash Bandyopadhyay and Ors.

Pradip Ray Vs Kashinath Roy & Anr.