Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJA RAM versus DISTRICT JUDGE BASTI AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raja Ram v. District Judge Basti And Others - WRIT - C No. 20921 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7863 (18 April 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

Court No.23

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.20921 of 2006

Raja Ram   Vs. District Judge, Basti and others.

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.

The injunction application (7-C) filed before the trial court was being heard on 17.2.2006 and since the argument had not been concluded, it was posted for hearing on the next date i.e. 18.2.2006 and till the next date injunction order was granted. The defendant in the suit filed an appeal challenging the said interim order dated 17.2.2006 granted till 18.2.2006.  The appellate court after hearing the case directed to the parties to maintain status quo.  Ultimately, the appeal was finally allowed vide order dated 5.4.2006 setting aside the impugned order dated 17.2.2006 with the direction that the trial court shall conclude the hearing of the injunction application (7-C) and pass a suitable order.  The record of the court below was sent back for further hearing. The case was fixed for hearing on 13.4.2005.  However, on 13.4.2005 the case was adjourned for 18.4.2006 i.e. today.  The petitioner-plaintiff has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 5.4.2006 passed by the appellate court.  

On perusal of the record and after hearing of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any illegality, committed by the appellate court in passing the impugned order dated 5.4.2006 nor there is any error apparent on the face of the record which warrants interference by this court to exercise its extra ordinary discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  More so, the hearing of the injunction application 7-C is pending before the court below and nothing prevents the parties from participating in the proceedings.  This writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed.  However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to proceed expeditiously with the hearing of the injunction application 7-C strictly in accordance with law  and procedure without being influenced by any observation made by the appellate court or by this court.   No order as to costs.

Dated: 18.4.2006

pkc/3


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.