NARAN MALICK vs ASIT MALICK — 30/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O-43,R-1(R). Status: Steps / Requisites. Next hearing: 22nd July 2026.
Misc. Appeal
CNR: WBHW090012202025
Filing Number
567/2025
Filing Date
09-Sep-2025
Registration No
30/2025
Registration Date
09-Sep-2025
Court
Additional District Judge, uluberia
Judge
2-ADJ 1St Court
Last updated 20-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NARAN MALICK
Adv. BANANI GHOSH
Respondent(s)
-
1.ASIT MALICK
Case History
-
22-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
09-Mar-2026
Steps / Requisites
ADJ 1St Court
-
19-Sep-2025
General OrdersView PDF
Summary: The appeal (Misc. Appeal 30/2025) against the trial court's order dated 18.08.2025 has been admitted as it was filed within time. The court rejected the appellant's prayer for ad interim injunction at this stage on an ex parte basis, finding that the appellant had not submitted a counter affidavit addressing the respondent's plea regarding non-joinder of necessary parties in the partition suit. The case is adjourned to 09.03.2026, with notice to be issued to the respondent to show cause within 7 days why the interim injunction should not be allowed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Sep-2025
Lcr
ADJ 1St Court
-
15-Sep-2025
General OrdersView PDF
-
15-Sep-2025
Hearing
ADJ 1St Court
-
09-Sep-2025
General OrdersView PDF
-
09-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 30/2025
Summary: The appeal (Misc. Appeal 30/2025) against the trial court's order dated 18.08.2025 has been admitted as it was filed within time. The court rejected the appellant's prayer for ad interim injunction at this stage on an ex parte basis, finding that the appellant had not submitted a counter affidavit addressing the respondent's plea regarding non-joinder of necessary parties in the partition suit. The case is adjourned to 09.03.2026, with notice to be issued to the respondent to show cause within 7 days why the interim injunction should not be allowed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts