In this revision, the High Court affirmed an order rejecting an application for site inspection under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC prior to hearing an injunction application. The court found the land description adequate for the injunction hearing.
Impugned order affirmed; revisional application dismissed; connected application disposed of.
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.
40 10.07.2024 Ct. No.22 pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
CO 2124 of 2022 with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2024 (Application not in the file)
Utpal Koley Vs. Subhasish Palui
Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra … For the petitioner
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee (through VC) Mr. Sanjoy Karan … For the opposite party
2
3
purpose prior to hearing of the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application for inspection of land under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC was erroneous given the description of the property.
Whether local inspection of the suit land was necessary prior to hearing the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Utpal Koley
Subhasish Palui
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
