Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sri Sameer Saran & Another v. Sri Rajendra & Others - MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 819 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17564 (6 November 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).


Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The plaintiffs of Original Suit No. 243 of 2007 have filed this application for setting aside the order dated 3.4.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad and the order dated 29.8.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Moradabad by which the Revision filed against the order dated 3.4.2007 has been dismissed as not maintainable.

The Original Suit had been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute. Along with the plaint, an application for grant of an injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was also filed on which the Trial Court issued notices to the defendants. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Revision in which initially an order of status quo was granted but the Revision was ultimately dismissed by the order dated 29.8.2007 as being not maintainable.

It has been stated in the application that subsequently the petitioners pursued their temporary injunction application before the Trial Court but till date no orders have been passed.

I have heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. In view of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4.

It is not in dispute that the notice on the application for grant of temporary injunction was issued by the Trial Court in April, 2007. There is a dispute whether the objection to the said application was filed by the Moradabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development Authority') as the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the objection to the injunction application had not been filed whereas Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Development Authority states that objection had been filed.

The petitioners apprehend immediate threat and, therefore, it would be appropriate in the circumstances of the case that a direction be issued to the Trial Court to pass an appropriate order on the injunction application expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioners before the Trial Court. In the event the Development Authority has not filed any reply, it may do so within a period of ten days from today.

For a period of one month or till an order is passed by the Trial Court, whichever is earlier, status quo as on date in respect of the property in dispute shall be maintained by the parties.

Subject to the observations made above, the application is disposed of.

Dt/- 6.11.2007



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 |

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