Back
S.P. Khare, J.
Rubab Bai (Smt.) v. M.P. Wakf Board, Bhopal
Civil Reven. No. 346 of 2002(J); Decided on 23.10.2002.
flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 39 fu- 4 ijarqd 2 && varfje O;kns‘k ds vkns‘k esa QsjQkj && ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha && O;kns‘k ls dksbZ dkfjr ugha && ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ifjorZu gksus rd vfHkHkkoh gksuk gksxkA
This is a revision by the non-applicants against order dated 29.12.2001 of the Wakf Tribunal, Bhopal, by which the application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC for variance in the order of interim injunction passed earlier has been rejected.
Arguments of both the sides heard. It does not appear that there is any change of circumstances or order of interim injunction is causing any undue hardship to the petitioner within the meaning of these phrases in the second proviso to Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. The order of interim injunction was passed earlier after hearing both the sides. Therefore, that has to preveail until there is change in the circumstances.
It is submitted that the Wakf Board is not producing its witnesses and the trial of the case is being prolonged. It is submitted that there is already an order of this Court that this case would be disposed of within six months. The Wakf Tribunal is, therefore, directed to dispose of this suit after recording evidence of both the sides without any further delay. The Wakf Board is directed to produce all its witnesses on the next date of hearing and the Tribunal will record the evidence day to day until the evidence is completed.
Thus, the revision stands dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
