Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NIYAZ AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Niyaz Ahmad v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 57658 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18260 (23 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 plaintiff of Original Suit No. 196 of 2002 that had been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from demolishing the house etc. and for restraining them from interfering with the use and occupation of the house. Along with the plaint, an application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed which was rejected by the Trial Court by the order dated 14.9.2005. Misc. Appeal filed against the said order was also rejected by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Court No.3, Bhadohi.

I have carefully perused the orders passed by the Courts below. The Courts below prima facie, found that the plaintiff had not placed any material before the Court which may show that the plaintiff was the owner of the property in dispute and on the contrary the records indicated that the property belonged to the Gaon Sabha. In such circumstances, the Court had found that no prima facie case existed in favour of the plaintiff.

The Courts below have given cogent reasons for rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction. 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 226/227 of the Constitution.

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

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

In this view of the matter, the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is dismissed. However, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadohi shall decide Original Suit No. 196 of 2002 expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Court.

Dt/- 23.11.2007

Sharma/57658


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.