SANJAY KUMAR SAHA@SANJAY KUMAR SHAHA@SANJAY KR SHAHA AND ORS RESHAB KUMAR vs PHUP TSHERING SHERPA AND ORS — CO/66/2026
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N/A. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCJ0019542026
Next Hearing
19th May 2026
Filing Number
CO/67/2026
Filing Date
14-05-2026
Registration No
CO/66/2026
Registration Date
18-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 57 )
Judicial Branch
RULE SECTION
Decision Date
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANJAY KUMAR SAHA@SANJAY KUMAR SHAHA@SANJAY KR SHAHA AND ORS RESHAB KUMAR
Respondent(s)
PHUP TSHERING SHERPA AND ORS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE
CIVIL MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2026 | CIVIL MOTION |
Orders
Case Summary: CO/66/2026 The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the revisional petition challenging an interim injunction order. The trial court had restrained defendants from transferring, alienating, or creating third-party interests in suit property, despite the original suit claiming declaration, possession recovery, deed cancellation, and damages—with no explicit injunction prayer. The High Court upheld the injunction, finding the trial court had discretion to mould relief to prevent defendants from rendering the suit infructuous and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court reasoned that without such restraint, plaintiffs could become remediless if property was transferred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CO/66/2026 The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the revisional petition challenging an interim injunction order. The trial court had restrained defendants from transferring, alienating, or creating third-party interests in suit property, despite the original suit claiming declaration, possession recovery, deed cancellation, and damages—with no explicit injunction prayer. The High Court upheld the injunction, finding the trial court had discretion to mould relief to prevent defendants from rendering the suit infructuous and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The court reasoned that without such restraint, plaintiffs could become remediless if property was transferred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts