Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM SAMUJH versus ADDITIONAL DIST. JUDGE / FAST TRACT COURT NO.2 AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Samujh v. Additional Dist. Judge / Fast Tract Court No.2 And Another - WRIT - C No. - 56224 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17894 (15 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioner is the defendant in Original Suit No. 6 of 2000 that had been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and for restraining them from making any construction. The Trial Court rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction but the Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 2006 filed against the order was allowed and the defendants were restrained from raising any construction. The defendants then filed a review petition which has also been rejected by the order dated 31.8.2007. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 22.2.2007 as also the order dated 21.8.2007.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the materials available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that some constructions have already been raised and the roof has to be laid. The order was passed in Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 2006 on 22.2.2007. For almost nine months the constructions have not been raised by the defendant. Though it is correct that a review petition was filed which has also been rejected but as pointed out, the constructions have not been raised pursuant to the order passed in Misc. Appeal for a period of nine months.

I have also perused the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that Original Suit No. 152 of 1997 and Original Suit No. 6 of 2000 may be consolidated since they relate to the same property and be decided expeditiously.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as set out in the petition, it is directed that Original Suit No. 152 of 1997 and Original Suit No. 6 of 2000 may be consolidated and tried together and they shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the Trial Court.

Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dt/- 15.11.2007

Sharma/56224


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.