Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DHAKKAR versus GULSAN

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dhakkar v. Gulsan - SECOND APPEAL No. 2911 of 1984 [2006] RD-AH 19964 (24 November 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.

Pursuant to the order dated 17.10.2006, the case is listed today.

Shri K.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant/applicant in Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 37317 of 2006 and Shri H.O.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents/opposite party nos. 1 and 2, are present.

In the present case, this Court by its order dated 13.11.1984 passed the following interim order on Civil Misc. Application No. 5540 of 1984 (dated 13.11.1984):

"Heard.

Issue notice.

Meanwhile the defendant-respondents shall not open any door or change the nature of the wall in dispute."

The aforesaid Contempt Application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant/ applicant, interalia, asserting that the defendants-respondents/opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have demolished the boundary wall and opened a new door on 19.9.2005.

Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of Smt. Gulshan (defendant-respondent / opposite party no.1) and Bhola (defendant-respondent / opposite party no.2). In the said counter affidavits, it is, interalia, asserted that no new door has been opened nor has any boundary wall been demolished.

In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit of Smt. Gulshan (defendant-respondent / opposite party no.1), it is suggested that a spot inspection be made in order to verify the truth of the case.

Separate rejoinder affidavits have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant/applicant in the aforesaid Contempt Application in reply to the aforesaid counter affidavits.

In paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit, filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant/applicant in reply to the counter affidavit of Smt. Gulshan (defendant-respondent / opposite party no.1), it is averred that the plaintiff-appellant/applicant has no objection if the spot is inspected to verify the truth of the averments made by the plaintiff-appellant/applicant in the aforesaid Contempt Application.

In view of the factual controversy involved in the present contempt matter and also in view of the suggestions made by both the parties, I am of the opinion that it will be appropriate that direction be given for inspection of the spot and submission of the Report in the matter.

Accordingly, the District Judge, Mirzapur is directed to depute a Judicial Officer of the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to inspect the spot and submit his Report in the matter.

The Judicial Officer so deputed by the District Judge, Mirzapur will personally inspect the spot after due intimation to both the parties, and submit his Report in the matter specifically mentioning as to whether any new door has been opened and/or any boundary wall has been demolished by the defendants-respondents/ opposite party nos. 1 and 2, as asserted in the aforesaid Contempt Application.

Copy of the Memorandum of Second Appeal alongwith copies of the judgments of the Courts below as well as copy of the aforesaid Civil Misc. Application No. 5540 of 1984 (dated 13.11.1984) as also copy of the said interim order dated 13.11.1984, will be sent to the District Judge, Mirzapur alongwith copy of the present order.

Further, copies of the aforesaid Contempt Application, counter affidavits, filed in reply to the aforesaid Contempt Application, and rejoinder affidavits, filed in reply to the said counter affidavits, will also be sent to the  District Judge, Mirzapur for getting the needful done, as directed above.

Necessary expenses in regard to the inspection etc., as per the relevant Rules, will be borne by both the sides equally.

The Judicial Officer, deputed by the District Judge, Mirzapur, will do the needful pursuant to the aforesaid directions, and submit his Report to this Court through the District Judge, Mirzapur on or before 2.3.2007.

The aforesaid copies etc. will be sent to the District Judge, Mirzapur by the Registry of this Court by 18.12.2006.

The case will now be listed on 9.3.2007.

Pursuant to the directions given in the said order dated 17.10.2006, Smt. Gulshan (defendant-respondent / opposite party no.1) and Bhola (defendant-respondent / opposite party no.2), are personally present before the Court today, and they are identified by Shri H.O.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents/opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

The said Smt. Gulshan (defendant-respondent / opposite party no.1) and the said Bhola (defendant-respondent / opposite party no.2) will be personally present before the Court on the next date fixed in the matter.

The case will not be treated to be tied-up with me.

Dt. 24.11.2006

Safi (S.A. 2911/1984)


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.