Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. USHA DEVI AND ANOTHER versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Usha Devi And Another v. District Magistrate And Others - WRIT - C No. 33601 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12955 (26 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

                                                                     Court No.6.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33601 of 2007.

Smt. Usha Devi and others.    Vs.  District Magistrate, Hathras

                                                       and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

      Heard Sri Rudreshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

      A suit for injunction was filed by the petitioners restraining the defendant first set from attaching the property in suit  belonging to the plaintiff or from auctioning it on behalf of the defendant second set. An application for temporary injunction was also filed and the petitioners prayed for exemption under Section 80 (2) Civil Procedure Code. By its impugned order dated 20.7.2007 the trial court rejected application on the ground that in the letter dated 21.7.2007, which was the basis for the plaintiff's apprehension about imminent danger it is directed that the proceeding be taken against borrowers who are respondents 7 and 8 and not against the plaintiff. A perusal of the letter dated 21.7.2007 indicates that it does not refer to anything which may indicate that any order for attachment or sale of the plaintiff's property is to be taken. The order passed by the court below therefore does not suffer from any illegality as the letter dated 21.7.2007 merely directs that the proceeding be taken for attachment of the property of the borrowers. However, in case notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code is given and there is any subsequent development, which may cause apprehension that the petitioner's property is being attached or sold it would be open to the petitioners to file the suit even before the notice period has expired.

        With the above observations the writ petition is disposed of.

26.7.2007.

s.


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.