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

2006 Supreme(All) 1649

UMESHWAR PANDEY
NARENDRA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
NAGAR NIGAM BAREILLY – Respondent


Advocates:
Ajit Kumar, ANIL TIWARI, Manu Saxena,

UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14-2-2006, passed by the Revisional Court in a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner-plaintiff moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. , upon which the Trial Court issued notices to the defendants-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, vide Annenxure No. 2, and fixed a date for objection and disposal of the temporary injunction matter. The petitioner-plaintiff went in revision against that order which was though entertained but was found to be not maintainable and after hearing both the parties the Revisional Court discussing the merits of the respective cases of parties, passed the impugned order directing the Trial Court to hear the temporary injunction matter and then pass suitable orders in that regard.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revisional Court directed that the revision was not maintainable and it required the trial Court to hear the temporary injunction matter and dispose of the application of the petitioner and objections of the respondents on merits. It was not in th






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