Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Page No.# 9/26

14. It is submitted by Mr. Das, the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Court below committed manifest illegality in entertaining and allowing the second application for injunction filed by the Respondent, even though similar reliefs had already been sought and declined in earlier proceedings. The Respondent had earlier filed Misc. (J) Case No.501/2024, an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, praying for recovery of possession wherein she herself admitted that the Appellants were in possession of the suit property and thereafter filed the Misc. (J) Case No.666/2025which was dismissed as not pressed. As such, entertaining another application under the same provisions without any change in circumstance was a clear abuse of the process. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the learned Court below failed to take into consideration the fact that the second injunction application was filed on 09.09.2025 and registered as Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025 after a year of the filling of the amendment application for recovery of possession by the respondent which was filed on 04.06.2024 and registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 501/2024 and therefore the learned Court below ought not to have granted the relief of mandatory injunction wherein no necessity of immediate intervention and/or urgency was projected by the respondent.