Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J
Parshotam Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the property dispute and lower court history regarding injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. assessment of prima facie case based on historical documents and possession. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 3. application of principles for interim injunction (balance of convenience and protection against irreparable loss). (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. limitation of high court's supervisory power under article 227 of the constitution. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
Romesh Verma, Judge (oral)
The present petition arises out of the order dated 26.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., whereby appeal preferred by the present petitioners/defendants has been dismissed and the order, dated 18.08.2023 as passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. has been affirmed, whereby an application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was partly allowed. Whether approved for reporting?11 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
______________________________________
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
