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

1998 Supreme(All) 936

D.K.SETH
RAHMULLAH – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.G.Bhai, R.R.Chitragupt, TRIPATHI

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner had filed Original Suit No. 18 of 1998 against the opposite parties for permanent injunction restraining them from raising any construction by taking forcible possession over the property after evicting the plaintiffs forcibly from plot No. 142 measuring 0-6-8 and plot No. 143 measuring 0-1-12 described at the foot of the plaint in respect of the suit property described therein. In connection with the said suit, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for temporary and ad interim injunction. By an order dated 21. 3. 1998, learned Civil Judge, (S. D. ). Siddharth Nagar had rejected the application for temporary injunction. Misc. Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1998 was preferred by the plaintiff. By an order dated 2. 5. 1998, the said appeal was dismissed. It is this order which has since been challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india.

( 2 ) SMT. Suneeta Tripathi, holding brief of Mr. Tripathi B. G. Bhai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that both the trial court as well as the appellate court though had come to a finding that so far as plot No. 143 is conce






















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