Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI RADHA KIRSHAN JI MAHARAJ VIRAJMAN MANDIR & ANOTHER versus RAMANAND AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sri Radha Kirshan Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir & Another v. Ramanand And Another - WRIT - C No. 50028 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16091 (14 September 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

Hon. Tarun Agarwala,J.

The petitioners have filed a suit and during the pendency of the suit it is alleged that defendant No.1 sold the property to defendant No.2. An impleadment application was moved which was allowed and the said defendant was impleaded as defendant No.2. The defendant's application for temporary injunction against both the defendants remained pending and no orders were passed on the said application. In the meanwhile the trial court held that the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs was insufficient and directed the plaintiffs to make good the deficiency in the Court fee. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by this order filed a revision and during the pendency of the revision moved an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying that the defendant No.2 be restrained from alienating the property in question. This application was rejected by the revisional court, against which, the plaintiff-petitioners have filed  the present writ petition.

In the opinion of the Court, the revisional court was justified in rejecting the application, inasmuch as, the court was only considering the question of the validity of the order of the trial court with regard to sufficiency of the court fee. Further the injunction application is still pending consideration before the trial court. Consequently, the revisional court was justified in not considering the application filed by the plaintiffs  under Section 151 of the C.P.C.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances that has been brought on record, I direct the revisional court to decide the revision expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of  the production of a certified copy of this order.

Dated:15.9.2006

AKJ(WP 50028/06)


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.