Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LAXMI NARAIN CHATURVEDI & ANOTHER versus CIVIL JUDGE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Laxmi Narain Chaturvedi & Another v. Civil Judge & Others - WRIT - C No. 61856 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3370 (22 September 2005)

 

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'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

We have examined paragraph 7 and other paragraphs of the application dated 19.5.1997 moved by respondents no. 2 and 3 in suit no. 188 of 1976 which was decreed pursuant to the arbitration award in 1977 for partition. Both these respondents no. 2 and 3 were defendants no. 6 and 7 in the suit and were minors at the time of institution of suit in 1976 being aged about 13 and 11 years respectively under the guardianship of their father. Over all reading of the application dated 19.5.1997 indicates that these respondents no. 2 and 3 want the decree to be set aside and the suit re-open on the ground that they were minors and their father who was their guardian did not protect their interest on account of some undue influence of their uncle.

When such application has been moved after 20 years of the decree, the two minors must explain when they attained the age of majority and why after attaining the age of majority they did not elect within the prescribed period to disown their guardian's act in the litigation.  There is no explanation whatsoever in the application.  In fact, the application does not even disclose when the two minors attained the age of majority.  However, considering the plaint averment these two minors attained the age of majority in 1981 and 1983.  In absence of any explanation as to why these two minors did not apply for setting aside of the decree from 1983 to 1997, the trial Court was not justified in granting interim injunction or in entertaining the application and keeping the same pending.

In the circumstances, issue notice to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.  Till further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Misc. Case No. 148 of 1997 as well as operation of interim injunction dated 26.7.1997 will remain stayed.  

Dated: 22.09.2005

RCT/-61856/05/writ


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.