Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BANSHIDHAR versus CIVIL JUDGE JR. DIVISION JAUNPUR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Banshidhar v. Civil Judge Jr. Division Jaunpur And Others - WRIT - C No. 30066 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10846 (4 July 2006)

 

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 UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 2.5.2006 whereby the trial court has directed the original Suit No. 1448 of 1996 to be listed on 25.7.2006 for further orders. The court has also extended operation of the order of temporary injunction passed in the said suit.

The learned counsel contends that the impugned order extending the temporary injunction order earlier passed in the suit should not have been passed by the court below in the face of Order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the said court vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. On petitioner's application under Section 10 C.P.C. the proceedings of the suit have  been stayed and subsequent thereto no such order extending the operation of the temporary injunction order could be legally passed by the court.

From the facts and circumstances as appearing from the documents filed on record it is evident that the petitioner and respondent both have filed two suits in respect of the same property, one being Original Suit No. 1370 of 1996 filed by the petitioner and the other 1448 of 1996 filed by the respondent. In both the suits exparte temporary injunction orders were passed. It is evident from Annexure-5 that the proceedings in the subsequent Suit No. 1448 of 1996 have been stayed under Section 10 C.P.C. and, therefore, the extension of the temporary injunction order passed by the court by the impugned order may not appear to be legally justifiable.

Accordingly, while disposing of the writ petition, it is hereby observed that the extension of the temporary injunction order made in Original Suit No. 1448 of 1996 shall not be treated to be an operative order, but at the same time it is directed that the court below where both the suits are pending shall take up the petitioner's injunction application moved in his Suit No. 1370 of 1996 expeditiously and dispose it of finally after hearing both the parties preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

04.07.2006

SUA/30066-06


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.