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

1999 Supreme(All) 1296

D.K.SETH
HARENDRA PRATAP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANIL KUMAR SINGH, TRILOKI NATH

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE opposite party Nos. 2. 3 and 4 filed O. S. No. 842 of 1999 before the learned Additional civil Judge. IIIrd Court. Allahabad for the following reliefs :

(a) That by decree of mandatory injunction the defendants be directed not to transfer the plaintiffs from City Allahabad to any other city. (b) That the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs. (c) That any other and further reliefs be also awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant which the Court deems fit and proper In the interest of justice.

( 2 ) IN connection with the said suit, the opposite parry Nos. 2. 3 and 4 had filed an application for injunction. By an order dated 28th July, 1999 notices were directed to be issued on the petitioner, while the learned trial court was not satisfied that ad interim order could be issued before issuing the notice under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX. This order was challenged by the Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Civil Revision No. 940 of 1999. The learned Additional District Judge, IInd Court, allahabad by an order dated 3rd August. 1999 had granted an ad interim injunction till 20th september, 1999 staying the operation of the transfer of the opposite party






















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