Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAYA RAM GAUTAM versus MAN MOHAN SHARAN & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Maya Ram Gautam v. Man Mohan Sharan & Another - SECOND APPEAL No. 1496 of 1981 [2006] RD-AH 16497 (20 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. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

List has been revised. Shri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is present. However, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents is not present.

It appears that on Civil Misc. (Stay) Application No. 14035 of 1981 (dated 9.11.1981), filed alongwith the Second Appeal, the Court passed the following interim order:

"Issue notice.

Until further orders of this Court, the disputed construction made by the defendant shall not be demolished."

No counter affidavit on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents appears to have been filed in reply to the aforesaid Stay Application, as is evident from a perusal of the Office Report dated 12.2.1993.

However, it appears that an Application being Civil Misc. (Modification) Application No. 6045 of 1990 (dated 23.11.1990) was filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant, inter-alia, praying for modifying the said interim order dated 9.11.1981 to the extent that the defendant-appellant be permitted to effect necessary repairs and to carryout the requisite reconstructions of the building in question.

The aforesaid Modification Application was filed on 23.11.1990.

Having perused the averments made in the aforesaid Modification Application and its accompanying affidavit and having regard to the nature of prayer made in the said Application and also keeping in view that almost 16 years have passed since the filing of the said Application, I do not find any good ground or sufficient reason for modifying the said interim order dated 9.11.1981. The aforesaid Modification Application is, therefore, rejected.

As no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents in reply to the aforesaid Stay Application, the said interim order dated 9.11.1981 is confirmed.

The Second Appeal is now ready for hearing, and it will be listed for hearing in due course.

Dt. 20.9.2006

Safi (S.A. 1496/1981)


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.