D.K.SETH
RAHMULLAH – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE – Respondent
( 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.