Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PRASENJIT BISWAS
Chief Operating Officer, Apeejay Infra-Logistics Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ramkrishna Bhakta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Prasenjit Biswas, J.
1. The present revisional application is directed against a portion of the order dated 1st July, 2011 in connection with Title Suit No. 208 of 2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia. By passing the impugned order application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed.
2. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a suit in respect of the suit property for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In that suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed at the behest of the plaintiffs and ex-parte ad interim order in form of status quo as regards nature, character and possession in respect of ‘Ka’ scheduled property as mentioned in the plaint was passed. The plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for appointment of commissioner for inspection of the suit property which was allowed by the Trial Court without serving a notice to the other side.
3. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner received a notice in or around the 2nd week of
Point of Law : No need for an expert’s opinion to ascertain the condition of the building in regarding the demolition of its roof.
The court affirmed that a defendant must clearly deny all allegations in the plaint to substantiate their defense and cannot seek evidence collection unless disputes are established.
A defendant must explicitly deny all allegations in a plaint to establish a defense; failure to do so restricts their ability to seek property inspections.
The court clarified that a defendant must specifically deny allegations in a plaint to pursue an application for local inspection under Order 39 Rule 7, emphasizing the significance of directly chall....
The Court emphasized the importance of correctly applying the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and set aside the impugned order due to misapplication of the relevant provisions.
The trial Court must provide reasoned orders when dealing with applications for temporary injunctions, particularly in urgent cases, and should not simply issue mechanical orders without assessment.
The main legal point established is that the appointment of a commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 is for the limited purpose of inspection necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, not for the ....
Ex parte injunctions must comply with mandatory procedural requirements, including giving notice to the opposing party. Non-compliance mandates vacating the injunction.
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
