Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Application Under Order 39, Rule 7 of The C. P. C.

    Uploaded by

    naman
    This document is an application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting that movable property attached in a civil suit be detained and preserved by the court. Specifically: 1. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of immovable property. 2. The movables in question have been attached and produced in court on a specified date pursuant to an earlier order. 3. Given the valuable nature of the movables, detaining and preserving them under the court's authority is expedient for justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Application Under Order 39, Rule 7 of The C. P. C.

    Uploaded by

    naman
    1K views2 pages
    This document is an application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting that movable property attached in a civil suit be detained and preserved by the court. Specifically: 1. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of immovable property. 2. The movables in question have been attached and produced in court on a specified date pursuant to an earlier order. 3. Given the valuable nature of the movables, detaining and preserving them under the court's authority is expedient for justice.

    Original Title

    APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 7 OF THE C. P. C.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting that movable property attached in a civil suit be detained and preserved by the court. Specifically: 1. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of immovable property. 2. The movables in question have been attached and produced in court on a specified date pursuant to an earlier order. 3. Given the valuable nature of the movables, detaining and preserving them under the court's authority is expedient for justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Application Under Order 39, Rule 7 of The C. P. C.

    Uploaded by

    naman
    This document is an application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting that movable property attached in a civil suit be detained and preserved by the court. Specifically: 1. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of immovable property. 2. The movables in question have been attached and produced in court on a specified date pursuant to an earlier order. 3. Given the valuable nature of the movables, detaining and preserving them under the court's authority is expedient for justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 7 OF THE C. P. C.

    IN THE COURT OF....................

    Suit No..................... of 19........................................

    C. D................................................................... Plaintiff

    versus

    C. F................................................................ Defendant

    The applicant most respectfully submits as under: —

    1. That the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff/applicant against the defendant for
    recovery of immovable property.

    2. That on an application moved by applicant under Order 38, Rule 5 C. P. C. the aforesaid
    movables have been attached and produced in the court on .................... (date),

    3. That the movables forming the subject-matter of the suit being valuable, it is expedient in the
    ends of justice that the said movables be detained and preserved by this Hon’ble court.

    PRAYER

    It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the movables specified in Annexure A annexed to
    this application be ordered to be detained and preserved.

    It is prayed accordingly.

    Applicant

    Through Advocate

    Place:....................

    Dated:....................

    CASE LAW

    Order 39, Rules 6 to 10.

    INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS — TRIAL COURT’S ABSOLUTE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE


    THE MATTER—OBSERVATIONS OF SUPERIOR COURT ONLY FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE.

    It is now fairly well known that any observations made in the course of interlocutory proceedings
    are for limited purpose of those proceedings and the trial court is always free and in fact is
    expected to decide the matter uninfluenced by
    any observations regarding appreciation of evidence etc., made by the revisional court for the
    limited purpose of those proceedings. The trial court will decide the matter in accordance with
    law in the light of its own assessment1.

    PROVISO—WHEN ORDER OF INJUNCTION IS ILLEGAL

    Where temporary injunction is granted without notice to opposite party but reasons for court’s
    opinion that delay would defeat the object of injunction if it were not given, the order of injunction
    is illegal2.

    EX PARTE INJUNCTION TO PLAINTIFF PARTNERS RESTRAINING DEFENDANT


    PARTNERS WHEN CAN BE GRANTED.

    While it is true that being partners the appellant’s right to participate in the business of the
    plaintiff and to have access to the place of business and the account books cannot be denied, it
    is equally true that they cannot be permitted to carry hostile activities which may adversely
    affect the partnership business itself and may bring it to a stand still. The trial court’s step to
    prevent the appellants from interfering with the day to day management and working of the
    partnership, cannot be said that the formation of opinion by trial court to proceed in terms of
    Rule 3 and its proviso to pass an ex parte temporary injunction violates any of those provisions
    and calls for any interference3.

    1. Rajbir Singh v. Rajbir Singh and another, 1986 (Supp. ) S. C. C. 736.

    2. Amyia Prasad v. Bejoy Krishna Chakraborty, A. I. R. 1981 Cal. 351.

    3. Bipin Chandra v. M/s. Purshottam Bhai Bhori Bhai & Co., A. I. R. 1984 M. P.
    110: i 984 Jab. L. J. 292: 1984 M. P. L. J. 238.

    You might also like