SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 1670

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI, B.N.SRIKRISHNA
Patnam Shakuntala – Appellant
Versus
Giridhar Mulji Chavda (D) by Lrs. – Respondent


ORDER :

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned.

2. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appeals are filed against the interim order passed in appeal by the High Court vacating the earlier order of injunction granted directing maintenance of status quo. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the High Court erred in exercising the discretion in vacating the injunction already granted. The result would be that third party interest would be created and the litigation will prolong. Instead it could have been appropriate for the High Court to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property in question until decision of the appeals.

4. We dispose of these appeals by setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. The cases are sent back to the High Court to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law.

5. We direct the parties to maintain status quo, i.e., not to alienate or create a third party interest in the property involved. On behalf of the sole respondent in SLP(C) No.20130/2003, the counsel appearing states that the matter has been settled inter se between the parties and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top