Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASHOK KUMAR YADAV versus KRISHAN GOPAL & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Krishan Gopal & Others - WRIT - C No. - 53601 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17201 (31 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 plaintiff has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hathras.

Original Suit No. 457 of 1992 had been filed for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of land measuring 84 square yard situated near Chunni Lal building in front of Hydal building. A written statement was filed along with counter claim. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim. Two Civil Appeals were, accordingly, filed by the plaintiff being Civil Appeal Nos. 13 of 2004 and 14 of 2004. An application under Order 11 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the plaintiff-appellant with a prayer that certain documents are in possession of respondent Nos. 3 and 5 and, therefore, they may be directed to produce these documents. This application was moved on the basis that the property in dispute belong to Nagar Palika Parishad.

The learned Additional District Judge, Hathras has rejected the application on the ground that neither in the plaint and nor in the written statement it was mentioned that the property in dispute belonged to Nagar Palika Parishad. The Court also observed that in the plaint the plaintiff-appellant had come out with a clear case that he was the owner of the disputed plot. In such circumstances the Court rejected the application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below which may warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 31.10.2007

NSC-53601


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.