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

CASE DISPOSED

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

Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N/A

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

19-05-2026

CIVIL MOTION

Orders

19-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case