Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE LUCKNOW DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER versus SURESH MASIH & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association & Another v. Suresh Masih & Others - WRIT - C No. - 46682 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16007 (25 September 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 AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard Sri A.D. Saunders, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.B. Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

It transpires that a temporary injunction was granted by the trial court. Since the defendant was not complying with the said order, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. which was rejected, against which, two revisions were filed. By a common order dated 6.9.2007, the revision of the plaintiff was dismissed and the revision of the defendant was partly allowed. The revisional court also modified the injunction order. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

In my opinion, the revisional court had no power or jurisdiction to go into the validity and legality of the injunction granted by the trial court. The revisional court was only confined to the validity and legality of the order passed by the trial court on the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. and was not concerned with the validity and legality of the temporary injunction granted on the application 6-C of the plaintiff. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order of the revisional court in so far as it modifies the injunction order stands set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court and the injunction application would be decided by the trail court after hearing the parties expeditiously.

Dated: 25.9.2007

AKJ(WP 46682/07)


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.