Revisional application challenging refusal to extend an ad interim injunction in a property suit. The court directed the trial court to decide the pending injunction application within four weeks, permitted written objections, continued the interim protection till then, and disposed of the revision and the misc. appeal.
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.
82 06.11.2024 Ct. No.237 pg.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
CO 3476 of 2022
Padma Sarkar & Ors. Vs.
Chhakina Bibi & Ors.
Mr. Subhasish Sengupta
Mr. Bishajib Ghosh Mr. Avirup Chatterjee
Mr. Rishav Das … For the petitioners
Mr. Satyam Mukherjee Ms. Sayani Ahmed Mr. Purnendu Shekhar Ghosh … For the opposite party nos.1, 2 & 3
2
refused further extension of that particular interim order on the ground that the plaintiffs/petitioners herein were no longer in possession on account of transfer of their portion of the property.
3
as all the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am of the humble opinion that the learned Trial Court should be requested to dispose of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and thereafter to proceed with the suit which is pending since 2022.
4
(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim order should continue pending disposal of the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC before the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Padma Sarkar & Ors.
Chhakina Bibi & Ors.
Bibhas Ranjan De
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
