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

1984 Supreme(Guj) 203

A.S.QURESHI, P.SUBRAMONIAN POTI
P. CHIDAMBARAM – Appellant
Versus
JOINT CIVIL JUDGE (J. D. ) NAROL,ahmedabad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: MAHESH C.BHATT

P. S. POTI, J.

( 1 ) HOWEVER we may be tempted to treat this petition as a under Article 297 of the Constitution of India and to interfere with an which prima facie we feel calls for notice by this Court we are not doing this only because we do not want to set up a precedent of interference by this Court with an order passed by a Civil Court ex-parte which order could be sought to he vacated by filing objection before the same Court. No doubt it is pointed out that the particular history of this case and particularly the directions given by this Court earlier as also the urgency of finally determining the injunction matter calls for the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. But while declining to give any relief under Art. 227 at the moment we could very well issue directions which would make the resort by the petitioners to the Court which passed the ad-interim order efficacious.

( 2 ) THE order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Narol reads thus:"you the defendants and defendant No. 3s members be restrained by this Honble Court by committing calling or otherwise gathering the people and making any provocative or inflamatory








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