Back
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Pratima Dinda – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Dinda – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
1. The present appeal has been preferred against an order whereby the application filed by the defendants/appellants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for modification of an injunction order was dismissed on contest.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants argues that although the defendants/appellants had started construction much prior to the institution of the partition suit, by virtue of the injunction order, the said construction has been stopped, thereby resulting in the building materials and the construction partially made decaying.
3. It is argued that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the owners of a minuscule share in the property, are holding the interests of over 40 co-sharers at ransom. It is argued that the injunction order restraining all the defendants from making any further construction is not commensurate with the minimal shares claimed by the plaintiffs.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs in the court below and the primary contesting respondents, argues that the points now sought to be raised before this court were substantially urged before the learne
The court affirmed that modification of an injunction order requires a change in circumstances, which was not established by the defendants, thus upholding the original injunction.
In partition suits, prior permissions and investments by a party can outweigh claims for injunctions, especially when shared property rights are involved.
The court affirmed its inherent authority to issue preservation orders under Article 227 and Section 151 of CPC, regardless of injunction criteria not being satisfied, emphasizing the maintenance of ....
Point of law: If an injunction is obtained falsely stating that High Court has refused to grant an injunction and when the same is also not considered on main and it will be considered along with mai....
Partition proceedings cannot be halted when the suit land is shown to be joint between the parties according to the revenue record.
The legal point established is that the scope and effect of injunction orders must be interpreted strictly, and the party complaining of disobedience must establish that the order is unambiguous and ....
The court emphasized the discretionary and equitable nature of temporary injunctions, considering the balance of convenience and limited jurisdiction to interfere with trial court orders.
Even a co-sharer may be restrained by temporarily injunction from making construction.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
