MADAN LAL versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Madan Lal v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 53403 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17127 (30 October 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. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 36 of 2007. The said suit had been filed for injunction to restrain the defendants from executing any lease-deed and from interfering in his possession. An application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was also moved by him. The Trial Court rejected the injunction application and the Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of the Trial Court was also dismissed by the order dated 16.10.2007. This petition has been filed for quashing these two orders.

The Courts below have recorded a finding that the land in dispute was given to the petitioner on lease by the Irrigation department on 1.4.1996 and the lease was valid up to 31.3.2006. The suit was filed on 18.1.2007 and according to the defendants the land was subsequently leased in favour of one Yogesh Kumar on 29.1.2007. The Courts have recorded a finding that the petitioner had not complied with the terms of the lease-deed and the lease was not renewed. Subsequently it was leased in favour of Yogesh Kumar so possession has also been given to him.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for the renewal of the lease and the execution of the lease-deed in favour of Yogesh Kumar should be cancelled. All these are questions of fact which have to be examined in the suit. The Courts below have rejected the injunction as the term of the lease of the petitioner had expired and a fresh deed had been executed in favour of Yogesh Kumar who has been put in possession. There is no infirmity in the order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dt/- 30.10.2007

Sharma/53403

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.