Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Hanuman Singh Baghel v. Rapti Housing Co,. - WRIT - C No. 7944 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 2931 (8 February 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).


Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7944 of 2006

Hanuman Singh Baghel....................................................................Petitioner


Rapti Housing Finance Co. Ltd. & others.......................................Respondents


Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition has been presented to challenge the order dated 9.12.2005 whereby the court below has fixed a date for disposal of two applications        (35-C and 75-C).

In  a suit for permanent injunction exparte interim order was passed and notices were issued to the respondents/defendants. Thereafter the defendants appeared and have filed counter affidavit and stay vacation application being paper No. 36-C. Subsequent thereto, an application paper No. 75-C has been moved by the petitioner/plaintiff praying that the case of power of attorney as set up by the respondent No.4 may be considered at the first instance and then only the total injunction matter be decided.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the court below, instead of taking up the application (75-C) of the plaintiff for separate decision on the matter of legality of the power of attorney held by respondent No.4, has taken it up along with the entire injunction matter including 35-C.

The argument of the learned counsel does not appear to be at all comprehendible  because the defendant No.4 has based his case on the alleged power of attorney only and has, thus, prayed for vacation of the exparte injunction order. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, it is not decipherable as to how both the matters can be separated and decided separately. Whether the power of attorney held by respondent No.4 is a legal document and convey some right and title in him for representing respondents No. 1 to 3 or not in the present matter, is a question which is related to the matter of grant or refusal of injunction by the trial court. Both the matters are not separable and cannot be decided independently. The court below will definitely find out while disposing of the injunction matter whether the respondent No.4 has a locus in the case to represent respondents No. 1 to 3 in the suit or not and in case the court find that th power of attorney held by respondent No. 4 is not a genuine document, obviously his stay vacation application cannot be treated to be maintainable and would be rejected. But in case the court finds that the power of attorney is a correct document, it should proceed accordingly and pass suitable orders in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.




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


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 |

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