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

1989 Supreme(Ori) 18

S.C.MOHAPATRA
SUBAL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
PURNA CHANDRA – Respondent


S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.


( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revisions filed by defendant 1 arise out of a common order in a suit. Accordingly, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) ). Suit is for partition in which plaintiffs prayed for repurchasing the land purchased by defendant 1. In the suit, plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction against defendant 1. Ex parte ad-interim order of injunction was made by the trial court. Defendant 1 appeared and filed written statement disputing the claims of the plaintiffs. Objection to the application for temporary injunction was also raised by him. He filed an application for appointing a person to inspect the disputed land. During continuance of the order of injunction, plaintiffs filed an application for punishing defendant No. 1 for violating the order of injunction which is pending consideration. Plaintiffs filed an application for a direction of the trial court to the police to implement the order of injunction. Trial court rejected the application of defendant 1 and allowed the application of the plaintiffs in the impugned order. Hence these two Civil Revisions have been filed by defendant 1.

( 3 ) WHE









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