Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BRAHMACHARI YADAV AND OTHERS versus DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Brahmachari Yadav And Others v. District Judge And Others - MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 32 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3667 (2 March 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Pankaj Mithal,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

In the suit issue No. 3 has been framed with regard to the jurisdiction of the court.

The petitioners who are plaintiffs moved an application in the suit for deciding the aforesaid issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue. The said application has been rejected by the trial court holding that issue No. 3 is a mixed question of fact and law and is depended upon the outcome of the issue No. 11 which is totally factual in nature. The petitioners revision against the said order has also been dismissed.  Both the above orders have been challenged by means of this writ petition.

I have perused the judgment and orders of both the courts below and found that the issue of jurisdiction is depended upon the nature of the land which has to be decided under issue No. 11. The decision on the nature of the land is purely factual in nature, therefore the courts below have committed no error in holding that the issue of jurisdiction involves both facts and law.

A part from the above, the petitioners are not adversely affected if the said issue of jurisdiction is decided simultaneously with the other issues, as the petitioners themselves are the plaintiffs in the suit.

In view of the above, no interference is called for in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit  as a whole as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in as much as the suit is pending since 1988.

2.3.07

SKS (32-07)


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.