Appeal against refusal to vacate an ad-interim injunction granted to plaintiffs in a partition suit. The court held the alleged non-disclosure of exclusive ownership was not a material fact under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and dismissed the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11, directing expeditious disposal of the injunction application.
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.
AD – 34 Ct No.16 07.07.2026 (SSS)
FMA 671 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 Dilip Roy and Ors. Vs.
Panch Kori Roy and Ors.
Mr. Sharanya Chatterjee, Mr. Subhajit Barman, Ms. Riya Kundu
……For the appellants.
defendants/appellants’ application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to vacate an ad-interim order of injunction granted in a partition suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, was refused.
2
ad-interim injunction, thereby vitiating the grant of ad-interim injunction itself.
3
injunction application as well as the suit. It is made clear that the learned Trial Judge will be at liberty to decide the injunction application and the suit independently on their own merits without being influenced in any manner by any of the above observations or the observations made in the impugned order.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
4
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suppression of the appellants' claimed exclusive ownership of part of the suit property was a material non-disclosure vitiating the ad-interim injunction.
Whether Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC required vacating the ad-interim injunction in the partition suit.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilip Roy
Panch Kori Roy
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Supratim Bhattacharya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
