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


Firangi And Another v. Awadhesh And Another - WRIT - C No. - 56523 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18013 (19 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 petitioners are plaintiffs of Original Suit No. 1 of 2004 that had been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs on plot No. 111 and to restrain the defendants from raising constructions or dispossess the plaintiffs from plot No.111. Along with the plaint, an application for grant of temporary injunction was also moved. The Trial Court in its order dated 20.2.2004 observed that as no survey had been done, it would not be possible to hold whether the defendants were raising constructions on plot No.111 or on plot No. 95 G. It, therefore, ordered that the defendants could not be restrained to raise constructions in plot No. 95 G.

Subsequently the plaintiffs moved an application 56 C that they may be permitted to raise constructions on plot No.111. This application has been rejected by the Trial Court and the Revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed.

The Courts below have observed that since the survey map had not been prepared, it would not possible to identify the situation of plot No.111 and as the plaintiffs intended to raise constructions during the pendency of the suit such permission could not be granted as it was not possible to determine whether they intended to raise constructions on their own plot or on the plot of the defendants.

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 226/227 of the Constitution.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, a direction may be given for early disposal of Suit.

Considering the facts and circumstances as set out in the petition, it is desirable that the suit itself be decided expeditiously.

In view of the matter, the application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is disposed of directing the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.18, Deoria to decide Original Suit No. 1 of 2004 expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Court.

Dt/- 19.11.2007



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.