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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 178

ARUN KUMAR JHA
Maya Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: M/s Chandra Kant, Ravi Bhushan Bharat.
For the Respondents: M/s Udit Narayan Singh, Rajiv Kumar.

Arun Kumar Jha, J. – Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and I intend to dispose of the present civil miscellaneous petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. The instant petition has been filed for setting aside last part of order dated 30.01.2017 contained in Annexure-1, passed by the learned A.D.J - IV, Siwan in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the learned Court has refused to pass order for demolition of structure made during pendency of appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 450 of 2010 for adjudication of plaintiff’s right, title and possession over the suit land and for declaration of his dispossession as illegal. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from one Ram Nath Prasad and the defendants purchased their land from the sons of Ram Nath Prasad. The defendants wanted to purchase the land of the plaintiff.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed injunction petition and an order dated 07.07.2010 was passed granting status quo. The defendants appeared but did not file written statement and they filed their show cause in the inj

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