Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHARAM RAJ versus RAM NIWAS GUPTA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dharam Raj v. Ram Niwas Gupta - WRIT - C No. 5901 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2333 (31 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has filed a suit for possession alleging that the defendant respondent has taken forcibly possession of two rooms of his house. The respondent on the other hand has filed a suit for injunction that his possession may not be disturbed and he should not be evicted from the premises in question except in accordance with procedure prescribed for the purpose under law.The court below on the injunction application preferred from the side of the respondent, in his suit  has directed that the possession and occupation of the premises in question held by the respondent shall not be disturbed and he would not be evicted till disposal of the suit except in accordance with law. Against this order of the trial court as well as the order affirming the same passed  by the appellate court, this petition has been moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The petitioner has himself admitted in his pleadings before the court that the respondent has taken forcible possession over the rooms in question. Obviously, the suit has been filed for his dispossession and eviction. Therefore, unless and until some decision is given in the said suit of the petitioner, the eviction of the respondent from those rooms is not possible. It is under these circumstances that the courts below passed the impugned orders, which have been challenged here in this petition. The petition, as such, appears to be wholly devoid of any merit and must fail.

The petition is hereby dismissed.

31.01.2006

gp/5901


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.