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

1994 Supreme(Raj) 558

GOKUL CHAND MITAL
Bhinya Ram son of Shera Ram – Appellant
Versus
Hukma Ram and two Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.R. Patel, for the Petitioner L.R. Upadhyaya, for the Respondents

Honble MITAL, CJ. — This is defendants revision against the order of first appellate court dated 20.5.1993, dismissing the appeal as not maintainable against the order of trial court granting mandatory and prohibitory injunction to the plaintiff, on an application filed under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(2). In the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., the plaintiff got mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction in the street so that the plaintiff can pass easily through that passage and prohibitory injunction not to obstruct the street in future. The trial court did not say that by that order it was giving temporary relief to the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and or under Section 151,C.P.C. only. Against that order of the trial court, the defendant filed an appeal before the District Court and the District Court relying on a judgment of this Court in Minerva Siksha Samiti, Bharatpur v. Smt. Mithlesh Kumari (1), held that mandatory injunction can only be granted under Section 151, C.P.C. and, since in the case in hand mandatory injunction was granted, appeal will not lie under Order XXXIII Rule i(r), C.P.








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