Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEV RAJ NAGAR AND ANOTHER versus KARTAR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dev Raj Nagar And Another v. Kartar And Others - WRIT - C No. 22004 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9183 (9 May 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

HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

A suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs with regard to plot No. 965/6 area two Biswas in which an application for temporary injunction was also filed and it was contested by the respondents-defendants. The trial court, while going through the material available on record, found that the two adjacent plots; one in dispute being plot No. 965/6 primafacie is the property of the petitioners-plaintiffs where as the plot No. 965/5 is the property of respondents-defendants. Both were alleging interference in their respective plots and in this view the trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession of the respective parties over those plots. This  order of the trial court has been confirmed by the appellate court in appeal and the petitioners' appeal has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial court has committed error in directing both the parties to maintain status quo in the land in suit.

It is true that the subject matter of the suit is plot No. 965/6, but the adjacent portion of plot No. 965 being plot No. 965/5 which belongs to the defendants-respondents was being attempted during the pendency of the suit for encroachment by the petitioners themselves and looking into these aspects and circumstances the trial court has passed the impugned order directing both the parties not to interfere in each others possession over their respective plots. This order does not appear to have any legal or otherwise error requiring interference in this petition. The appellate court's order, thus, while confirming the trial court's order, has also no infirmity.

Accordingly, the petition, having no force, is hereby dismissed.

09.05.2006

SUA/22004-06


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.