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


Pramod Kuamr Jauhari And another v. Sri Akbar Khan And Others - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 974 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8225 (24 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).


Court No. 34

First Appeal From Order No. 974 of 2006

Pramod Kumar Jauhari and another Vs. Sri Akbar Khan and others


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

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This First Appeal From Order has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 27.3.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bareilly by which the injunction application filed in Original Suit No. 106 of 2006 has been rejected.

The injunction application in the Original Suit had been filed for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in Arazi Nos. 106, 107 and 108 Math Lakshmipur, Bareilly. The court below has observed that the claim set up by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid plots was on the basis of certain sale-deeds. The names of the plaintiffs-appellants had been mutated on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deeds but the matter was still pending adjudication before the Revenue Courts in the proceedings taken under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The trial court has, therefore, observed that as the matter was still engaging the attention of the Revenue Courts, it cannot be said for certain as to who was the rightful owner for determining whether the vendor had a right to execute the sale-deeds. The trial court has further observed that in any view of the matter, the plaintiff-appellants had no right over plot No.107 since it had vested in the State in the year 1995 and the other two plots could not be separated as was clear from the averments made in the Plaint.

Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellants has placed before us a Map in order to support his contention that the land situated in Arazi Nos. 106 and 108 could be separated out. Sri Rahul Sripat, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has, however, submitted that this document was not filed before the trial court and, therefore, the same cannot be examined by this Court.

Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has fairly stated that this document was not filed before the trial court. This document, therefore, cannot be examined by us and, therefore, the sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants for challenging the findings recorded by the trial court does not survive.

The First Appeal From Order is, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, make it clear that the findings recorded by the trial court or by this Court, while examining the injunction matter, will not influence the trial court when it proceeds to decide the Suit.




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.