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.

Case disposed Next hearing 19-May-2026

CNR: WBCHCJ0019542026

Filing Number

CO/67/2026

Filing Date

14-May-2026

Registration No

CO/66/2026

Registration Date

18-May-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

19-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Act ,1908 Section N/A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANJAY KUMAR SAHA@SANJAY KUMAR SHAHA@SANJAY KR SHAHA AND ORS RESHAB KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PHUP TSHERING SHERPA AND ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Arindam MukherjeeView PDF

    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.

  3. 19-May-2026

    CIVIL Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee

  4. 14-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CO/66/2026

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case