Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
Mritunjay - Appellant
Versus
Civil Judge (J.D.) Shahganj And 3 Others - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 4560 of 2015
Decided On : 26-08-2015
Injunction - Property Dispute - The court refused to grant ex-parte injunction in a property dispute case involving joint tenure-holders, and directed the trial court to expeditiously consider the application for temporary injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order refusing to grant ex-parte injunction in a property dispute case and requested a direction to restrain the respondents from interfering in his possession of one-third share in the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the trial court's decision and directed the trial court to expeditiously consider the pending application for temporary injunction.
Issues: The issues involved the refusal of ex-parte injunction and the pending application for temporary injunction in a property dispute case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the joint tenure-holding of the parties and the need for expeditious consideration of the application for temporary injunction.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with observations directing the trial court to expeditiously consider the application for temporary injunction.
Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
The prayer made in this petition is for quashing the order dated 14.7.2015, whereby the trial court issued notices to the defendants on the application for temporary injunction and refused to grant exparte ad interim injunction. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the trail court to pass an appropriate order restraining respondents no. 2 to 4 from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner to the extent of his one-third share in the suit property.
2. Original Suit No. 814 of 2015 has been instituted by the petitioner against the defendant-respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of his one-third share in the suit property. On 14.7.2015, the day on which suit was instituted, the petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction and prayed for grant of exparte injunction. The trial court after considering the pleadings and the material on record held that the parties to the suit are joint tenure-holders and they seems to be in joint possession and thus refused to grant ex-parte injunction. The trial court fixed 13.8.2015 for consideration of the application for temporary injunction.
3. After going through the order passed by the trial court, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or any miscarriage of justice, which may warrant interference therewith in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. Admittedly, the application for temporary injunction is still pending consideration before the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 13.8.2015, the injunction application could not be disposed of.
4. Be that as it may, since the application for temporary injunction is still pending, it shall open to the petitioner to press the same. It is desirable that the trial court decides the application for temporary injunction expeditiously by fixing short dates, provided the service is duly effected on the defendants.
With these observations, this petition stands disposed of.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
