Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRIMATI RAMO DEVI versus DHARMVEER ALIAS TOLU AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Srimati Ramo Devi v. Dharmveer Alias Tolu And Others - WRIT - C No. 26672 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9652 (16 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 petitioner.

The petitioner's suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by the trial court against which the petitioner has preferred regular appeal which has been admitted. The appellate court instead of passing an order on the temporary injunction matter has preferred to fix a date for hearing of the appeal itself. The respondents in the appeal have already put in appearance and the appeal is ripe for hearing.

The learned counsel contends that since the suit was filed in the year 1994, the plaintiff-petitioner had been granted temporary injunction which continued through out the trial and, therefore, it was necessary on the part of the appellate court to have given indulgence to the appellant continuing that injunction which she had been enjoying during the trial.

Since the petitioner's suit has been dismissed, it appears that the appellate court while admitting the appeal did not prefer to pass any injunction order in continuation of the earlier order which was in existence during the trial. Instead of passing such an order, the appellate court has fixed a date for hearing of the appeal itself and since that date two or three more dates were fixed when the appeal had not been heard. Therefore, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would be loath to pass any such order of injunction which might operate during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner may get the appeal heard on the date fixed and the appeal be got, thus, disposed of at the earliest. As told by the learned counsel for the petitioner tomorrow (17.05.2006) is the date fixed for hearing in the appeal. Let the hearing be not postponed any further and the appeal be heard and decided before the commencement of the summer vacation.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

16.05.2006

SUA/26672-06


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.