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


Munni Lal v. District Judge Jaunpur And Others - WRIT - C No. 16014 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 6772 (28 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).


Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) VI, Jaunpur to decide the pending temporary injunction application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

When the matter was taken up by this Court on 24th March, 2006, the petitioner was directed to file a supplementary affidavit to bring on record the orders passed by the Trial Court after 13th February, 2006. Today a supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record the orders dated 20th February, 2006 and 20th March, 2006 passed by the Trial Court. A bare perusal of the order dated 20th February, 2006 indicates that even though the petitioner/plaintiff had been directed to take steps on 6th January, 2006 for service upon the defendants but he had not taken steps as a result of which, the injunction application could not be decided. The Court, therefore, directed the matter to be placed on 20th March, 2006 so that the petitioner could take steps within one week. The order dated 20th March, 2006 passed by the Trial Court indicates that it was only on 30th March, 2006 that the petitioner/plaintiff had taken steps.

We are, therefore, really surprised that this petition should have been filed before this Court on 22nd March, 2006 making a complaint that the Trial Court was not disposing of the injunction application when, in fact, it was the petitioner/plaintiff who himself was responsible for the delay inasmuch as inspite of specific orders by the Trial Court, he had not taken steps to serve the defendants. Such conduct, therefore, of the petitioner/plaintiff in making false allegations about the non-disposal of the injunction application deserves to be deprecated and we do so.

The observations made above leave us with no option but to dismiss this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.    

Date: 28.3.2006



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.