RAKESH KUMAR versus PRESCRIBAD AUTHORITY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Rakesh Kumar v. Prescribad Authority - WRIT - A No. 33163 of 1994 [2006] RD-AH 14202 (23 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.25

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33163 of 1994

Rakesh Kumar  

Vs.

Prescribed Authority and others

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

List has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus directing the Prescribed Authority, Chandausi,  Moradabad  to execute the eviction  order as confirmed by the appellate court and further for a direction to Judge, Small Causes Court, Chandausi, Moradabad (Executing Court) to execute the decree in SCC Case No.9 of 1986 as confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A further prayer has been made to quash the plaint of suit no.1488 of 1994 pending in the court of Civil Judge, Moradabad as also to quash the exparte injunction order dated 29.9.1994 passed in favour of the respondents. A further writ has been sought in the nature of prohibition to the Civil Judge, Moradabad from proceeding with the Suit No.1488 of 1994.

When this writ petition was filed on 7.10.1994 no interim order was granted to the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that upon issue of exparte injunction, objections were filed and the matter was heard on merit and by a detailed order dated 1.11.1994 the ad- interim injunction  application of the plaintiff has been dismissed and the exparte injunction order dated 29.9.1994 has been vacated. It is also stated that Suit No.1488 of 1994 was finally dismissed  by the court on 8.11.1994 and as such no proceedings are pending before the court below. In view of

-2-

aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit, this petition does not survive any longer .

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order is passed as to costs.

23.8.06

Gc.

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 |

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