First Appeal regarding denial of ad-interim injunction. Court held the appeal infructuous as the impugned order is pending disposal on a future date.
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.
22.11.2021 20 sdas
FMAT 391 of 2021 with CAN 1 of 2021
(via video conferencing)
Javed Azam Hariri alias Javed Alam Hariri & Ors. Vs.
K. Suleha Begum & Ors.
Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee Mr. Debabrata Roy …… for the appellants
Mr. Syed Ehtesham Huda ….. for the respondent no. 1
Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that injunction was denied at the ad-interim stage on absolutely incorrect considerations. It is also submitted that the learned trial court failed to consider that defendants/respondents were undertaking illegal construction violating the sanctioned plan.
This is, however, disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent no. 1 who submits that the appeal is infructuous as the injunction application has been heard out finally and date has been fixed on 23rd November, 2021 for passing order thereon.
In view of the subsequent development in the matter, we choose not to go into the merits of the appeal and the same is accordingly disposed of
2
observing that the trial court may dispose of the injunction application at the earliest.
In view of disposal of the appeal, connected application being CAN 1 of 2021 is also disposed of.
(Bivas Pattanayak, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
Javed Azam Hariri & Ors.
K. Suleha Begum
Bivas Pattanayak
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
