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


Murali v. Mohd. Moonish & Others - WRIT - C No. 26752 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9709 (17 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).


Court No. 23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26752 of 2006

Murali Vs. Mohd. Moonish & others


Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard Sri Murlidhar, Senior advocate, assisted by Sri Kamal Narain Rai for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashi Kant Upadhyay for the respondents.

The petitioner challenges the order of the appellate court whereby the trial court's order directing the parties to maintain status quo, on the petitioner's temporary injunction application, has been set aside.

There is a dispute between the parties with regard to two Ahatas as shown in Amin's map. The petitioner-plaintiff claims the northern Ahata as his property whereas the southern Ahata is admittedly the property of the defendants-respondents, but the defendants dispute the title of the petitioner over the northern Ahata also and claim it to be their property. As per the plaint case, the northern Ahata is part of Plot No. 66/2, 67/2 and 68 of village Noorpur whereas the southern Ahata is the part of Plot No. 543 of village Amilo. It is not disputed between the parties that the aforesaid plots are the respective properties of the parties, but the existence of these disputed Ahatas in the aforesaid plots is slightly disputed. As per the defendants' case taken in the counter affidavit, the disputed northern Ahata as the part of Plots No. 66/2, 67/2 and 68 of village Noorpur and claim it to be a part of Plot No. 543 only.  This dispute is such which cannot be lightly resolved. However, the petitioner-plaintiff, in order to substantiate his case that the two Ahatas which are adjacent to each other, fall in the respective plots, should have filed the settlement map of the villages which could denote to this fact that these plots are actually adjacent to each other and that should have been the best primafacie evidence to support the plaint contention. But then for the reasons best known to the plaintiff the maps have not been filed. Actually the filing of those maps could also have hit the case of the defendants that the two adjacent Ahatas are the part of the same property of Plot No. 543.

The trial court had though directed the parties for maintaining status quo in the land in suit, but the appellate court has not found favour for confirmation of that order and if the court below has exercised its discretion in the other way, I do not find any justification to interfere into it in writ jurisdiction. It would be, however, expedient that the suit itself is disposed of expeditiously. The learned counsel for the respondents-defendants states that the written statement in the case would be filed within a maximum period of one month and accordingly on filing of such written statement, the court below will proceed with the hearing of the case and decide it within this year 2006.

The writ petition stands disposed of as above.




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.