November 2019

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Injunction–Against forcible dispossession-In case of simpliciter injunction, plaintiff is required to prove long and settled possession—In present case, it remained unproved-Suit for injunction held to be righty dismissed.   

By | November 24th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Injunction–Against forcible dispossession-In case of simpliciter injunction, plaintiff is required to prove long and settled possession—In present case, it remained unproved-Suit for injunction held to be righty dismissed.   

Injunction—Suit for right of easement of necessity—Declaration of easement rights could not be decided without appreciating the evidence-Directions issued to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit

By | November 9th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Injunction—Suit for right of easement of necessity—Declaration of easement rights could not be decided without appreciating the evidence-Directions issued to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit

July 2019

June 2019

May 2019

March 2019

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Permanent Injunction-Public Street-­ Encroachment ~A person who seeks equity must do equity—If at all, there was some encroachment on behalf of the appellant, he should have removed the same and then sought the injunction—In the absence of the same, and the courts below had no other option but to dismiss the suit

By | March 26th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Permanent Injunction-Public Street-­ Encroachment ~A person who seeks equity must do equity—If at all, there was some encroachment on behalf of the appellant, he should have removed the same and then sought the injunction—In the absence of the same, and the courts below had no other option but to dismiss the suit

Injunction—Suit for Possession—Court Fee— Civil suit for mandatory injunction claiming possession of the suit property from the defendants in the absence of payment of court fees, much less branding them to be licenses would be maintainable in case they have been filed within reasonable time, otherwise relief for possession on payment of court fees is required to be sought

By | March 15th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Injunction—Suit for Possession—Court Fee— Civil suit for mandatory injunction claiming possession of the suit property from the defendants in the absence of payment of court fees, much less branding them to be licenses would be maintainable in case they have been filed within reasonable time, otherwise relief for possession on payment of court fees is required to be sought

Temporary Injunction- Application under O.39 R.I and R.2 not to be dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction in absence of any application by defendants for rejection/return of plaint under O.7 R.11 or R.7 R.10 CPC on this ground—Question of jurisdiction requires leading of evidence at an appropriate stage—Order dismissing the application set aside.              

By | March 14th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Temporary Injunction- Application under O.39 R.I and R.2 not to be dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction in absence of any application by defendants for rejection/return of plaint under O.7 R.11 or R.7 R.10 CPC on this ground—Question of jurisdiction requires leading of evidence at an appropriate stage—Order dismissing the application set aside.              

December 2018

October 2018

June 2018

April 2018

March 2018

February 2018

Nothing on record to show that co-sharer was in possession of the property which he sold to the petitioner—Further revision against correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of petitioner is still pending-Thus, petitioner has not been prima facie able to show that she came in exclusive possession of the property in dispute

By | February 18th, 2018|Injunction|

Comments Off on Nothing on record to show that co-sharer was in possession of the property which he sold to the petitioner—Further revision against correction of Khasra Girdawari in favour of petitioner is still pending-Thus, petitioner has not been prima facie able to show that she came in exclusive possession of the property in dispute

January 2018

Interim order was passed on 31.10.2015 whereas caveat was filed on 3.11.2015—Thus, there cannot be any intentional and willful act of concealment on the part of plaintiff-­Order vacating the interim relief set aside.

By | January 23rd, 2018|Injunction|

Comments Off on Interim order was passed on 31.10.2015 whereas caveat was filed on 3.11.2015—Thus, there cannot be any intentional and willful act of concealment on the part of plaintiff-­Order vacating the interim relief set aside.

Injunction—Against co-sharer—If the other party is allowed to do the act, which cannot be compensated in terms of money then the case has to be decided on preponderance of the documentary evidence and not the actual and factual aspect at the spot.

By | January 23rd, 2018|Injunction|

Comments Off on Injunction—Against co-sharer—If the other party is allowed to do the act, which cannot be compensated in terms of money then the case has to be decided on preponderance of the documentary evidence and not the actual and factual aspect at the spot.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.32–Civil Imprisonment—Disobedience of Injunction—Injunction granted in favour of respondent

By | January 3rd, 2018|Injunction|

Comments Off on Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21 R.32–Civil Imprisonment—Disobedience of Injunction—Injunction granted in favour of respondent

December 2017

November 2017