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

2003 Supreme(Del) 771

H.R.MALHOTRA
SITAL DASS RAKYAN – Appellant
Versus
JAIN KHARTARGACHH SANGH (REGD. ) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Anita Bhari, SANJIV KHANNA

H. R. Malhotra, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application made by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under the provision of Order 39 Rule 2a, CPC and also another application under order 39 Rule 2a, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking action against the plaintiffs for flouting the orders of the Court passed on 2nd March, 2001 to the effect that status quo in respect of the property in question be maintained. It is the grievance of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that despite such order, the plaintiff No. 1 has started construction in the suit property.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS have filed reply to this application denying the allegations made in the application and further denying that the plaintiffs were prohibited from making any construction or renovation in the suit property in question i. e. temple.

( 3 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties onboth the applications. For the purposes of dealing with these applications it is essential to look into the plaint. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from entering upon the suit property and also from interfering with or trying to take possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs claimed




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