first and second defendants (i) for a
permanent injunction restraining the first and second defendant, their agents
and servants any person, every person claiming under ... relief as sought for in the suit, even
the bare injunction or injunction simpliciter.
35. The learned counsel for D2 would also contend that
during the pendency of the suit proceedings,
injunction was in operation, and in the teeth of injunction, second
registered sale deed came to be executed
order
Bordiwala Collector dated dated 12.2.1999.
4.2.1993.
3. Faruqbhai • First injunction
Allarakhbhai • An application application was
Adhiya rejected by order
(Exhibit 77) was
filed ... seeking dated 22.6.2001
4. Umarbhai
permission to
Abubakarbhai
amend the plaint • Second injunction
Tinwala
in order to application was
challenge order rejected by order
order
Bordiwala Collector dated dated 12.2.1999.
4.2.1993.
3. Faruqbhai • First injunction
Allarakhbhai • An application application was
Adhiya rejected by order
(Exhibit 77) was
filed ... seeking dated 22.6.2001
4. Umarbhai
permission to
Abubakarbhai
amend the plaint • Second injunction
Tinwala
in order to application was
challenge order rejected by order
over the possession of the schedule mentioned property;
ii)an injunction restraining the second defendant or his servants or agents
or anybody on his behalf ... file of the City Civil Court, Madras for an injunction restraining the second
defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit
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 ... 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
deed on 22.02.2006 was in derogation of the ad interim injunction
granted in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 ... ground that it was in violation of the
interim injunction passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1247 of 1999 on
26.04.1999. The second part relates
purchase of plaint schedule property
and also for consequential injunction restraining the second respondent
from proceeding with auction of the suit property.
3. According ... SARFAESI Act and the first respondent is not entitled to seek injunction
against second respondent bank. However, a plaint cannot be invoked in
part while
purchase of plaint schedule property
and also for consequential injunction restraining the second respondent
from proceeding with auction of the suit property.
3. According ... SARFAESI Act and the first respondent is not entitled to seek injunction
against second respondent bank. However, a plaint cannot be invoked in
part while
fact, after withdrawal
of the suit for injunction, the second respondent instituted comprehensive
suit in O.S.No.364 of 2024 on the file ... interim injunction application, the second respondent has now
resorted to lodge the present complaint upon frustration and as a tool for
oppression and harassment
