Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. MANORAMA TEWARI versus RAM JIWAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Manorama Tewari v. Ram Jiwan Singh And Another - WRIT - C No. 76186 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7626 (15 December 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

                                                                                       COURT NO.54.

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 76186 OF 2005

Smt. Manorma Tiwari.............................Petitioner.

                                        Versus

Ram Jiyawan Singh and another..................Respondents.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

The plaintiff/respondents instituted a suit no. 1866 of 2002 and  an application for temporary injunction was moved by the plaintiffs.  The trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo on 1.9.2004.  This order was challenged in misc. appeal, which was dismissed on 13.9.2005.  Both the orders are under challenge.  Submission is that the plaintiffs had already filed a writ petition no. 28497 of 2004, Ram Jiyanwan Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. through the Collector, Allahabad and others.  A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 2.8.2004 had restrained the respondents from interfering in possession over the plot nos. 57 and 27 C in the event, it does not hold up the construction of the G.T. Road between Allahabad and Varanasi, which is earmark route.  Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that this fact was concealed by the plaintiffs before the trial court and the suit has been instituted.

I have perused the judgment and order of the trial court where the trial court has clearly noticed the order passed in the writ petition.  It is clear that this Court had directed the State of U.P. not to interfere in possession of the petitioner Ram Jiyawan Singh, who is plaintiff and instituted a suit against the defendant. There is no illegality in the order impugned in the instant writ petition. The court has only directed the parties to maintain status quo during pendency of the suit, which has been confirmed in appeal.  The judgment and orders do not call for any interference.  The writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 15.12.2005

rkg


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.