Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. SAT KARTAR LEASING & FINANCING CO.PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER versus RAJ KUMAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S. Sat Kartar Leasing & Financing Co.Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Raj Kumar - WRIT - C No. 24511 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10931 (2 July 2007)

 

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 Janardan Sahai, J.

       A suit for injunction was filed by the petitioners in which one of the reliefs was to restrain the defendant from using the rasta in dispute. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using the rasta. The appellate court has allowed the appeal of the defendant Counsel for the parties referred to the plaint map, which has been annexed in this writ petition. The plaintiffs' portion is shown towards the west of the rasta. Towards east of the rasta is a shopping complex said to be of one Hari Shanker. The defendants property is towards south of the rasta, which ends on the northern side of the defendant's property. The appellate court has found that the question whether the rasta was a private rasta of the plaintiffs or the defendant also had a right to use the rasta is a matter, which can be decided after the parties have led evidence. It is not disputed by the petitioner's counsel that the plaintiffs have purchased the property and that in the sale deed  the rasta has not been described as his sole private rasta.

     In the circumstances the finding recorded by the appellate court that the question whether the rasta is the sole rasta of the plaintiff or not can  be decided after the parties have led evidence does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. However, counsel for the parties agree that the suit itself may be disposed of expeditiously and within a time bound period. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the suit be disposed of expeditiously and if possible within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioners before the court below.

2.7.2007.

s.wp.24511/07.


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.