Back
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL
Saurabh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Archna Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri Ankit Srivastava and Sri R.B.S. Rathaur learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. No one appears on behalf of respondent no.3 despite service of notice.
3. Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Hardoi in Civil Suit No.23 of 2023 (Saurabh Gupta vs. Smt. Archna Gupta and others) by which the injunction application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. (application no.13(g) has been rejected.
4. The crux of the matter is that the appellant filed a Civil Suit No.23 of 2023, impleading the respondents as defendants, for a declaration that he is the co-sharer of 1/4th part of the property in dispute as the property belongs to joint family property because it was purchased by the father of the appellant, who is also the husband of respondent no.1 in the name of respondent no.1. In the suit above, the specific plea was taken that respondent no.1 was the house maker and did not have any independent source of income. Through a sale deed dated 20.10.1986, the appellant's father purchased the property in dispute from Ram Ratan Gupta.
Sunil Parihar VS Ganpat Singh - 2021 0 Supreme(Raj) 2296: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment (e.g., followed, overruled). The entry describes a ruling on evidence for injunction without referencing subsequent case treatment.
K.S. Jaya Gopal S/o. Sekharan Vs Seema D/o. Senan - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 554: No treatment indicators. Entry summarizes a Family Court decision on ownership claims without referencing how this case was treated later.
Swapan Kumar Bandopadhyay @ Swapan Kumar Banerjee vs Sanjit Kumar Mondal @ Sanjit Mondal - 2025 0 Supreme(Cal) 423: No treatment indicators. Entry appears to be an incomplete excerpt from proceedings ("prays that a direction be passed") with no reference to treatment.
Sachin Kumar vs Nidhi Dohre - 2026 0 Supreme(All) 156: No treatment indicators. States a rule on Family Court jurisdiction without citing treatment by other cases.
Zenit Mataplast P. Ltd. VS State of Maharashtra - 2009 6 Supreme 584: No treatment indicators. Quotes principles on interlocutory injunctions (e.g., "object of the interlocutory injunction is") without referencing treatment.
BHAGWAT SHARAN (DEAD THR. LRS. ) VS PURUSHOTTAM - 2020 8 Supreme 444: No treatment indicators. Lists principles on burden of proof and estoppel (e.g., "Burden is on person who alleges") without treatment language.
Neon Laboratories Ltd. VS Medical Technologies Ltd. - 2015 7 Supreme 337: No treatment indicators. Discusses perversity, deference to other High Courts, and trademark law (e.g., "First user of a trade mark would be entitled") without explicit treatment terms.
Rajnibai Alias Mannubai VS Kamla Devi - 1996 2 Supreme 18: No treatment indicators. Affirms court power for injunction under CPC provisions without treatment references.
M. Gurudas VS Rasaranjan - 2006 7 Supreme 289: No treatment indicators. Describes criteria for prima facie case in injunctions (e.g., "contention of plaintiff must be bona fide") without treatment language.
State of Assam VS Barak Upatyaka D. U. Karmachari Sanstha - 2009 3 Supreme 281: No treatment indicators. Rejects a contention on government liability without referencing case treatment.
Anand Prasad Agarwalla VS Tarkeshwar Prasad - 2001 4 Supreme 69: No treatment indicators. Advises against "mini trial" at injunction stage without treatment keywords.
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
