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

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
AJIT KUMAR
DR. JAMSHED KHAN – Appellant
Versus
NAGAR NIGAM, BAREILLY – Respondent
A227/7598/2021



Court No. - 9

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7598 of 2021

Petitioner :- Dr. Jamshed Khan

Respondent :- Nagar Nigam, Bareilly

Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Krishna,Hemant Kumar

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Amit Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri

Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent-

defendants namely Nagar Nigam, Bareilly.

By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution,

the petitioner has prayed for in the nature of temporary

injunction seeking to restrain the order as against the defendant

from carrying out any temporary injunction activity in respect

of already constructed hospital by the petitioner situate at Plot

No. 228/1 in the area known as Nagar Nigam, Bareilly.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

situation has arisen to file this petition before this Court even

while his application for temporary injunction in O.S. No. 907

of 2021 is still pending because the respondent-authority, Nagar

Nigam, Bareilly have tried to interfere in the peaceful

possession of the petitioner despite having put in appearance in

the pending suit.

Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the

Nagar Nigam, Bareilly that in view of paragraph 9 of the plaint

allegations, it is apparent that no notice has been issued to the

petitioner to carry out any temporary injunction activity. He

submits that Nagar Nigam, Bareilly is an authority in the nature

of strain mentality which would not carry out any such activity

without putting any notice upon the affected party and hence he

submits that the present petition is misconceived and the

petitioner pursued the remedy of injunction vide application

paper 6C pending in the suit.

Be that as it may, since according to the plaintiffs, there is no

notice issued and he is yet under threat of temporary injunction

exercise being taken by the respondent-Nagar Nigam, Bareilly

and the Nagar Nigam, Bareilly have already put in appearance

in the suit. It would in itself to be fit that this petition stands

disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to conclude the

proceedings of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2

of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within next six weeks

from the date of filing of a copy of this order along with

application and for a period of eight weeks or till the disposal of

temporary injunction application, whichever is earlier, the

parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of existing

structure qua suit property.

Order Date :- 17.12.2021

SA

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 Back to top