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

August 2017

July 2017

Civil Procedure Code, 1908,0.39 R.1 & 2–Injunction–Letter of Credit-Grievances of the plaintiff was/is against the quality of the material and not the quantity of goods supplied by supplier

By | July 30th, 2017|Injunction|

Comments Off on Civil Procedure Code, 1908,0.39 R.1 & 2–Injunction–Letter of Credit-Grievances of the plaintiff was/is against the quality of the material and not the quantity of goods supplied by supplier

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Injunction–Possession of Land-Plaintiff claimed title on basis of irrevocable GPA–Defendant No.1 claimed through defendant no. 2 and 3 but they did not support his case-Injunction held to be rightly granted in favour of plaintiff.

By | July 23rd, 2017|Injunction|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Injunction–Possession of Land-Plaintiff claimed title on basis of irrevocable GPA–Defendant No.1 claimed through defendant no. 2 and 3 but they did not support his case-Injunction held to be rightly granted in favour of plaintiff.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39 R.2-A & O.21 R.32-lnjunction–Violation of interim order during pendency of suit-Once a suit is dismissed or decreed, interim order, if any, merges into the final order and the interim order stands nullified automatically

By | July 22nd, 2017|Injunction|

Comments Off on Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39 R.2-A & O.21 R.32-lnjunction–Violation of interim order during pendency of suit-Once a suit is dismissed or decreed, interim order, if any, merges into the final order and the interim order stands nullified automatically