AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 141 wordsRoopesh Chandra Varshney, J
Heard on I.A. No.5032/23, which is an application for urgent hearing.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same stands allowed.
Heard on I.A. No.3152/16, which is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining respondents from alienating disputed property.
Heard also on I.A. No.4402/18, which is an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC against the appellant for restraining the appellants from disturbing the possession of respondents from disputed property.
Having heard both the parties and after perusing the record, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as it exists today regarding alienation and possession of the disputed property.
Accordingly I.A. No.3152/16 and I.A. No.4402/18 stand disposed of.
List this case for final hearing in the month November, 2023.