M/S DIVYAM DEVELOPERS AND ORS vs ANIRBAN DASGUPTA — 25/2026

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER-43, RULE-1. Status: Sr/Ad/Appearence. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.

Sr/Ad/Appearence Next hearing 17-Apr-2026 this date has passed

MISC. APPEAL

CNR: WBSP010014462026

Filing Number

867/2026

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

25/2026

Registration Date

30-Jan-2026

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Alipur, South 24 Pgs

Judge

1-District Judge

Last updated 09-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section ORDER-43, RULE-1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S DIVYAM DEVELOPERS AND ORS

    Adv. MURARI MOHAN GANGULY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.ANIRBAN DASGUPTA

Case History

  1. 17-Apr-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 05-Mar-2026

    Order by CourtView PDF

    Summary: The District Court of South 24-Parganas rejected the application filed by M/s. Divyam Developers under Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking enforcement of an injunction order through police help. The court found that the alleged violation of the injunction order did not match the scope of the original order, which only restrained the respondent from selling or encroaching on the property. Accordingly, the application was dismissed, with the matter adjourned to 17.04.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Mar-2026

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    District Judge

  4. 25-Feb-2026

    Order by CourtView PDF

  5. 25-Feb-2026

    Put Up

    District Judge

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    Order by CourtView PDF

  7. 10-Feb-2026

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    District Judge

  8. 30-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 25/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The District Court of South 24-Parganas rejected the application filed by M/s. Divyam Developers under Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking enforcement of an injunction order through police help. The court found that the alleged violation of the injunction order did not match the scope of the original order, which only restrained the respondent from selling or encroaching on the property. Accordingly, the application was dismissed, with the matter adjourned to 17.04.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case