Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PAYAL FOUNDARY WORKS versus JANTA TOKA STORE & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Payal Foundary Works v. Janta Toka Store & Anr - CR-5522-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4627 (21 July 2006)

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

C.R.No. 5522 of 2005

Date of decision:25-7-2006

M/s Payal Foundary Works . .........Petitioner Versus

M/s Janta Toka Store and another ..........Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr M.L.Saggar, Advocate, and

Mr.G.P.Vashisht, Advocate, for the petitioner.

VINOD K.SHARMA,J.

This revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the Civil Judge, (Jr.Divn.), Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

The petitioner had sought an injunction in the same application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. In the application, under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, the petitioner had also sought a restraint order against the respondents from alienating the property and from dispossessing the petitioner during the pendency of the suit.

The learned court below came to the conclusion that there was no allegation in the application that the respondents were trying to dispose of the property to defeat the decree to be passed in the present case. It was further observed that the petitioner has not even disclosed the details of the property which was sought to be attached. Accordingly, finding no force in the application, the same was dismissed.

The learned trial Court also rejected the application under Order 39 Rules 1 C.R. No.5522 of 2005

& 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by holding that the petitioner had no right in the property to seek the injunction.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to show any illegality in the impugned order which may call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.

July 25 ,2006 (VINOD K.SHARMA)

'dls' JUDGE


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.