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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Section NONE

Petitioner(s)

SUSHANTA MONDAL

Adv. SANJOY BANDOPADHYAY

Respondent(s)

JAGABANDHU MONDAL AND 6 ORS

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge

23-04-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

Judgement

07-02-2026

Judgement

27-01-2026

Hearing

13-01-2026

For Admission

Final Orders / Judgements

23-04-2026
Copy of Judgement

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

13-01-2026
Copy of Order
27-01-2026
Copy of Order
casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Disrtrict and Sessions Judge, Hooghly All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case