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


Rajpati v. District Judge & Others - WRIT - C No. 23442 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 14047 (22 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. 4

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23442 Of 2003.



The District Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur and others


Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for respondent, Sri Rajiv Misra, has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that since the petitioner is already pursuing remedy of appeal before the District Judge against the order dated 10th September 2002 which is impugned in the writ petition the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. Sri Misra has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1989 RD 410, Suraj Prasad Vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur and another wherein this Court has held that it is settled that no writ petition can be entertained only for the purposes of granting interim order. Likewise it is equally settled that no petition can, normally be maintained against interlocutory order. It cannot be disputed that the instant writ petition is directed against interlocutory order and is basically for getting an interim relief alone. It is, therefore, not maintainable.

The aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge has been recently endorsed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 Allahabad Daily Judgments 1, Om Prakash Vs. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others.

In view of the aforesaid facts since the petitioner is already pursuing remedy of appeal this writ petition is dismissed on the aforesaid ground alone. So far as second relief of the petitioner is concerned no relief can be granted by this Court.

In view of what has been stated above this writ petition is dismissed without entering into the merits of the case.

Dt: 22.8.2006.



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.