Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KUNJ BIHARI versus CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIV.) HAMIRPUR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kunj Bihari v. Civil Judge (Senior Div.) Hamirpur And Others - WRIT - C No. 3943 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1546 (20 January 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

Civil Misc. W.P. No.  3943 of 2006

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that a learned signle Judge of this Court passed a final order on 20th March 2003 in Writ Petition No. 12333 of 2003 filed by the present petitioner. That final order contained certain directions. The relevant directions of which say that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 1 lakh within a week before the trial Court, he may cut the standing crops. The order further says that the amount so deposited be invested in an interest bearing scheme of a nationalised bank and disposal of such amount will abide by the orders of the trial Court, which may be passed in the Suit No. 27 of 2003.

The petitioner made the deposit and cut away the standing crops. Now he has applied to the trial Court that the  amount of Rs. 1 lakh be refunded to him with interest.

This Court is not sitting in appeal over the final order of the learned single Judge dated 20.3.2003. That order of the learned single Judge clearly meant that the trial Court should decide as to whether the petitioner was or was not entitled to cut the standing crops and accordingly, the disposal of the deposit and interest would be made in favour of the party so found entitled to cut the standing crops.

So far no such decision has taken place about the entitlement and, therefore, the question of refund of the money does not arise. The application before the trial Court as well as this writ petition are totally misconceived. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dated : January 20, 2006

AM/-


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.