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


Navin Kapoor v. Sri Krishna Gopal Kapoor And Others - WRIT - C No. 19442 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7391 (23 April 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.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 7th March, 2007 passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in Original Suit No. 125 of 2007 for grant of temporary injunction. The quashing of the order dated 5th April, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the aforesaid order dated 7th March, 2007 passed by the Trial Court has also been sought.

I have heard Sri Anand Mohan Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar learned counsel for the respondents.

The Original Suit had been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from alienating the Suit property as well as from raising any unauthorized construction. The Trial Court rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction holding that neither any prima facie case existed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff nor there was any balance of convenience in his favour and nor any irreparable injury was likely to be caused to him which could not be compensated by cost. The Appellate Court confirmed these findings. It also observed that earlier the plaintiff had filed Original Suit No. 668 of 2002 but the same was dismissed on 24th March, 2006 for not taking steps. Steps were not taken for getting the aforesaid order recalled and after a lapse of sometime Original Suit No. 125 of 2007 was filed without disclosing the filing of the earlier Suit. The Appellate Court, therefore, observed that the plaintiff/petitioner had not come to the Court with clean hands.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that any of the findings recorded by the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court suffer from any infirmity.

Such being the position, there is no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 23.4.2007



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.