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


Richpal Singh And Others v. Bhopal Singh - WRIT - C No. 14024 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 5621 (8 March 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).



Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This petition challenges the order dated 19.11.2005 and 14.12.2005 passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court respectively.

The respondent-plaintiff moved an application before the trial court for directing the Civil Court Amin to visit the spot and auction the standing sugarcane crops on the disputed property and the proceeds of the auction to be deposited in the Court. That application after hearing both the parties was allowed by the court below. The petitioners' revision against that order was heard and dismissed by the District Judge. The suit of the respondent-plaintiff is for the cancellation of a sale-deed executed in respect of the property in question. The plaintiff claims ownership over the disputed property. Earlier to this suit, the respondent had filed another suit for cancellation of sale-deed against the petitioner No.3, Smt. Vimla Devi in respect of the same property. That suit was decreed by the trial court, but was dismissed by the first appellate court. The second appeal of the respondent before this Court was earlier dismissed as not pressed, but has been subsequently revived and restored. The dismissal of the appeal was set aside. Against that order of restoration, the petitioner No.3 has moved this Court for setting aside the same as the said second appeal No. 1040 of 2000 was actually not pressed and then dismissed by the Court.

From the aforesaid facts it appears that the decision of the subsequent suit squarely depends upon the decision of the earlier suit in the second appeal before this Court. Thus, in these circumstances if the respondent-plaintiff's prayer has been given due weight by the court directing the Civil Court Amin to visit the spot and make auction of the standing crops over the disputed land, the said order does not appear to be inequitable. The proceeds of auction money shall remain deposited with the court for disbursement subject to the decision of the suit itself. Therefore, no party in such facts and circumstances is likely to be put to any loss because the entitlement to the standing crops and its value to either of the parties depends upon the decision of the suit. Thus, in the present facts and circumstances I do not propose to make any interference in the impugned order in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition, having no force, is dismissed.

It is, however, observed that the proceedings in the second appeal pending before this Court be got expedited by the parties so that the subsequent suit before the trial court may not hang in balance any further.




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.