SUSHANTA MONDAL vs JAGABANDHU MONDAL AND 6 ORS — 135/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section NONE. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd April 2026.
Misc. Appeal
CNR: WBHG010045362025
Filing Number
2033/2025
Filing Date
27-11-2025
Registration No
135/2025
Registration Date
27-11-2025
Court
Disrtrict and Sessions Judge, Hooghly
Judge
1-District Judge
Decision Date
23rd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SUSHANTA MONDAL
Adv. SANJOY BANDOPADHYAY
Respondent(s)
JAGABANDHU MONDAL AND 6 ORS
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Hearing
For Admission
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 07-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 27-01-2026 | Hearing |
| 13-01-2026 | For Admission |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY: 135/2025 - SUSHANTA MONDAL v. JAGABANDHU MONDAL AND 6 ORS The District Judge, Hooghly dismissed Sushanta Mondal's appeal challenging the trial court's appointment of a receiver over a disputed fish tank property. The court found that the defendants established a prima facie case for receiver appointment under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, as both parties claimed conflicting ownership interests and there existed imminent danger of loss (plaintiff allegedly caught and sold fish despite court orders). The appellate court upheld the receiver appointment, finding it justified to preserve the property pending trial resolution, particularly since the rightful owner would be determined only after evidence is heard and the defendants' conduct was free from blame. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
CASE SUMMARY: 135/2025 - SUSHANTA MONDAL v. JAGABANDHU MONDAL AND 6 ORS The District Judge, Hooghly dismissed Sushanta Mondal's appeal challenging the trial court's appointment of a receiver over a disputed fish tank property. The court found that the defendants established a prima facie case for receiver appointment under Order XL Rule 1 CPC, as both parties claimed conflicting ownership interests and there existed imminent danger of loss (plaintiff allegedly caught and sold fish despite court orders). The appellate court upheld the receiver appointment, finding it justified to preserve the property pending trial resolution, particularly since the rightful owner would be determined only after evidence is heard and the defendants' conduct was free from blame. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts