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

2022 Supreme(MP) 1144

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Omprakash Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Kumar Agrawal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Shri. Rajas Pohankar- Advocate, for the Appellant; Shri. Amit Seth- Advocate for Respondent No.1, for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.39/2022 by the Court of III Additional Judge to I Additional District Judge, Katni (M.P.), whereby the Appellate Court has reversed the order of the learned trial Court dated 05.04.2022, which had rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'Code') seeking temporary injunction.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants, which was registered as RCS A/07/2022 alongwith the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code. It is sated in the plaint that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 are real brothers and petitioners No.2 and 3 are real sons of petitioner No.1. It is also stated in the plaint that respondent No.1/plaintiff is the owner of 5111 sq.ft. of land, out of which land admeasuring 15 X 25 sq.ft. h

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            Judicial Analysis

            L. Chandra Kumar VS Union Of India - 1997 3 Supreme 147: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment pattern (e.g., followed, distinguished, overruled). The entry describes holdings on constitutional jurisdiction and tribunals, with no reference to how subsequent decisions have treated it.

            Jaswant S/o Kashi Ram Yadav VS Deen Dayal - 2011 0 Supreme(MP) 267: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment pattern. The entry states a procedural rule on issuing commissions for demarcation disputes, without any mention of subsequent treatment.

            Ravishankar And Anr. VS Viith Additional District Judge - 1994 0 Supreme(MP) 89: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment pattern. The entry clarifies the scope of Order 39, Rule 4 CPC, describing the court's holding without referencing how it has been treated in later cases.

            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