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

1989 Supreme(Gau) 156

R.K.MANISANA, W.A.SHISHAK
Aparajita Mukherjee and others – Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Mukherjee and another – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.Das, T.K.Dey and S.Chakrabarty

Judgement

MANISANA, J.:- This appeal arises from an order dated 29 October, 1988 of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala made in Civil Misc. Case No. 87 of 1988 arising out of T. S.No. 19 of 1987 pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge, West Tripura.

2. The respondent 1 filed T. S.No. 19 of 1987 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, West Tripura, Agartala for partition. The suit is pending in the Court of the Sub-Judge. During the Puja Vacation, the District Judge made an arrangement for holding Courts from 26 October, 1988 to 12 November, 1988. Under that arrangement Mr. M.K.Singh, the Additional Sadar Munsiff Agartala, was in-charge of the Sub-Judge during that period. However, the learned District Judge passed the impugned order of injunction on 29 October, 1989.

3. Mr. B.Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the ex parte interim injunction was passed by the District Judge without any jurisdiction; and that learned District Judge while passing the orders has not considered the principles underlying under O. 39, R. 3, C.P.C. I am not expressing my view about the jurisdiction as the appeal can be disposed of on other ground.

4. Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C. runs:

"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