Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Alok Kumar Srivastava & Another v. Shishuvir Singh Sengar & Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 303 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12956 (4 August 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).


Court No. 24

Civil Revision No. 303 of 2006

Alok Kumar Srivastava & another Vs. Shishuvir Singh Senger & others

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.

This revision has been preferred against an order of the trial court dated 14.07.2006 directing issuance of show cause notice to the defendant for disposal of the temporary injunction application. The court below did not find strength in the case to pass any exparte order of injunction and has preferred to hear the other party after service of notice.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that it was a very urgent matter in which  failure of justice would occasion if exparte injunction order was not passed by the court below and that way the order is erroneous and is liable for interference under Section 115 C.P.C.

I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The suit of the petitioners-plaintiffs is for permanent injunction in respect of a property, which is said to be a joint property of the parties. Obviously, the defendant has his own right and title over the property to the extent of his share. The facts of the case so reveal that there was hardly any urgency in the matter as to require passing of an exparte order for the court below before hearing the other party. It is in these circumstances that the court below has passed the impugned order and did not prefer to pass any exparte injunction order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.  Accordingly, the order does not require any interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court. The revision is without force and is hereby dismissed.

It is however, directed that the petitioners-plaintiffs would take appropriate steps for issuing notice to the defendant, which may be directed to be served upon the defendant through an Advocate Commissioner to be appointed at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs, who will serve it and give his report latest within a period of five days from the date the order of the court below is passed. Thereafter, in case the contesting defendant of the suit prefers to file objection by the date fixed, the court below will hear and pass suitable orders in accordance with law within a period of maximum 15 days.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.