High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Harjeet Singh v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - C No. 37622 of 2006  RD-AH 11852 (20 July 2006)
HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On petitioner's application for temporary injunction, the trial court has issued notice to the defendants-respondents fixing 4th of August, 2006 for disposal. No exparte injunction was granted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the boundary wall of the factory premises is proposed to be demolished by the respondent-North Central Railways and there is impending danger from the respondent for demolition of the said wall. Therefore, till the date fixed by the trial court, the boundary wall in question may not be demolished or damaged.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, when asked by the Court to give an understanding, does not agree to it and says that he is not authorised to give such understanding before the Court on behalf of the Railways.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition stands disposed of with the direction that the trial court will take up the temporary injunction matter after obtaining counter affidavit from the respondent and dispose of the same on that date itself. The defendant-respondent's counsel says that much before the date fixed, the counter affidavit will be filed.
Till 4th of August, 2006, the boundary wall aforesaid shall not be demolished by the respondent-defendant. His order shall not remain extended beyond that period.
Copy of this order be supplied to the parties' counsel on payment of usual charges within next 24 hours.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.