SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Cal) 580

MALAY KUMAR BASU
BINOD KUMAR GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
RAJENDRA PROSAD SHUKLA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMITAVA PAIN, D.P.MUKHERJI, SMRITIKANA MUKHERJI

MALAY KUMAR BASU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against the order dated 14th August, 1996 passed by the Ld. Additional District judge, 1st Court, Howrah in Misc. Appeal No. 44 of 1992. By that order that Court affirmed the order dated 3rd February, 1992 passed by the Ld. Munsif, 4th Court. Howrah in T. S. No. 26/1992 granting an ad interim injunction ex parte directing both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo of the suit property till the disposal of the injunction-petition under Order 39, C. P. C. The relevant facts were as follows. The suit No. T. S. 26/1992 was filed by the plaintiff-respondent praying for a decree for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing plaintiffs peaceful possession in the suit property and the plaintiffs also prayed for temporary injunction to the above effect till the final disposal of the suit. While passing the order for issuing notice upon the defendants to show cause why the temporary injunction as prayed for would not be granted the Ld. Munsif passed the impugned order granting the aforementioned interim injunction by directing the parties to maintain status quo till the











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top