Sushila Shaw vs Sanjoy Barui — 142/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: Show Cause. Next hearing: 10th July 2026.
Title Suit
CNR: WBNP180001792025
Filing Number
179/2025
Filing Date
08-May-2025
Registration No
142/2025
Registration Date
08-May-2025
Court
Civil Judge Jr. Divn. Bidhannagar
Judge
10-Civil Judge Jr Div
Last updated 08-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sushila Shaw
Adv. Agnipravo Deb
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sanjoy Barui
Case History
-
10-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
05-Mar-2026
Show Cause
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
09-Dec-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
04-Sep-2025
Written Statement
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
24-Jul-2025
Order By CourtView PDF
Summary: The plaintiff's application under Section 151 of C.P. Code seeking implementation of an ad interim injunction order (dated 08/05/2025) was rejected. The court found that despite the injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property, the defendant violated it on 30/05/2025 by forcefully preventing entry and placing a padlock on the property. The court held that since the plaintiff has already been dispossessed, a separate cause of action arose requiring separate relief, and therefore declined to enforce the ad interim injunction order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Jul-2025
Sr/Ad/Appearence
Civil Judge Jr Div
-
08-May-2025
Ad - InterimView PDF
-
08-May-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-May-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 142/2025
Summary: The plaintiff's application under Section 151 of C.P. Code seeking implementation of an ad interim injunction order (dated 08/05/2025) was rejected. The court found that despite the injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property, the defendant violated it on 30/05/2025 by forcefully preventing entry and placing a padlock on the property. The court held that since the plaintiff has already been dispossessed, a separate cause of action arose requiring separate relief, and therefore declined to enforce the ad interim injunction order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts