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

2021 Supreme(UK) 721

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Appeal from Order No. 227 of 2015
SMT. KHUSHNOODA BEGUM – Appellant
Versus
JAVED AKHTAR & ORS. – Respondent
Decided on : 22.02.2021

Advocates:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Order XLIII, Rule 1 and Sec. 40 – Suit for partition along with the prayer of temporary injunction application – Filed by appellant/plaintiff – Rejected by Trial Court – Appeal against by plaintiff – Placing reliance upon a affidavit filed by appellant in the proceedings u/s 34 of Land Revenue Act – In which she has made statement that suit property was partitioned much earlier and she transfer appellant’s share in the suit property in favour of defendant No. 27 and 28 – No reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by Trial Court – Direction issued to Trial Court to decide the suit as expediously as possible preferably within a period of twelve months from the date of production of order – Appeal disposed of. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)

nhokuh izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908] vkns’k XXXIX] fu;e 1] vkns’k XLIII] fu;e 1 o èkkjk 96 & LFkk;h O;kns’k izkFkZuk i= ds lkFk foHkktu ds fy, okn & vihykFkhZ@oknh }kjk nkf[ky & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vLohÑr & oknh }kjk fo#) vihy & Hkw&jktLo vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 34 ds v/khu dk;Zokfg;ksa esa vihykFkhZ }kjk nkf[ky ‘kiFk i= ij fo’okl /kkfjr djrs gq, fd & ftlesa mlus ;g c;ku fn;k gS fd oknxzLr lEifÙk dk foHkktu igys gh gks pqdk Fkk vkSj mlus oknxzLr lEifÙk esa va’k dks izfroknh la[;k 27 o 28 ds gd esa vUrfjr dj fn;k Fkk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns’k esa gLr{ksi djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks bl vkns’k dh izLrqrhdj.k dh frfFk ls ckjg ekg dh vof/k ds vUnj ;FkklEHko ‘kh?kz rFkk okn fu.khZr djus gsrq funsZ’k tkjh & vihy fuLrkfjrA ¼izLrj 2] 3 ,oa 4½

JUDGMENT

This Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 20.01.2015 passed by learned IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 372 of 2013. By the said order, temporary injunction application filed by the appellant, who is plaintiff in the suit, has been rejected.

2. Appellant filed a suit for partition. Alongwith the said suit, she filed a temporary injunction application with a prayer that the defendants to the suit be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession over the property in question. The appellant had also sought injunction against the defendants, restraining them from creating any third party interest over the suit property and also from changing the nature of the suit property. The said application was rejected by the trial Court, by placing reliance upon an affidavit filed by the appellant (plaintiff) in proceedings under Section 34 of L.R. Act, wherein she had made a statement that the suit property has been partitioned much earlier. Learned trial Court has also considered the fact that the appellant herself has earlier transferred her share in the suit property in favour of defendant nos. 27 & 28.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the order impugned in this Appeal, this Court does not find any reason to interfere. Learned Court below has considered all the relevant factors i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in great detail and has come to the conclusion that defendants have not been able to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction.

4. In such view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere in the matter. However, having regard to the fact that the partition suit was filed by the appellant in the year 2013 and more than seven years have gone by, the Appeal is disposed of with a request to learned trial Court to decide Original Suit No. 372 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

5. It is made clear that transfer of the suit property made by the parties or construction, if any, raised by the parties thereupon, shall be subject to final outcome of the said suit.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top