KHALILUR RAHAMAN AND ORS ANURAG SHARMA vs SERAJUL MD AND ANR — CO/23/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N/A. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 16th April 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0008252026
Next Hearing
25th February 2026
Filing Number
CO /23/2026
Filing Date
20-02-2026
Registration No
CO /23/2026
Registration Date
20-02-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 57 )
Judicial Branch
RULE SECTION
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KHALILUR RAHAMAN AND ORS ANURAG SHARMA
Respondent(s)
SERAJUL MD AND ANR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
CIVIL MOTION
CIVIL MOTION
CIVIL MOTION
CIVIL MOTION
CIVIL MOTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-02-2026 | CIVIL MOTION | |
| 16-04-2026 | CIVIL MOTION | |
| 10-04-2026 | CIVIL MOTION | |
| 09-04-2026 | CIVIL MOTION | |
| 08-04-2026 | CIVIL MOTION |
Orders
Case Summary The High Court at Calcutta partially allowed the revisional application, holding that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC by introducing new restrictions on property alteration and ownership changes that were not contained in the original injunction order dated 02.01.2026. The Court set aside the additional directions as substantive modifications, clarifying that inherent powers cannot enlarge or materially alter existing orders—only the original status quo directive regarding nature, character, and possession of the suit property remains valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The High Court at Calcutta partially allowed the revisional application, holding that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC by introducing new restrictions on property alteration and ownership changes that were not contained in the original injunction order dated 02.01.2026. The Court set aside the additional directions as substantive modifications, clarifying that inherent powers cannot enlarge or materially alter existing orders—only the original status quo directive regarding nature, character, and possession of the suit property remains valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts