The High Court disposed of the writ petition directed against petitioners' interference in property possession post-decree, holding that the matter requires execution of the decree or a fresh suit.
The writ petition is disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19136 of 2018
Petitioner :- Narendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal,Tabish Sheikh,Vivek Saran
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
There is apparently a dispute between the petitioner and private respondent nos.7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in regard to the property mentioned in the writ petition.
It is stated that the petitioner had obtained a decree from the Court of competent jurisdiction, but still the private respondents are interfering in the peaceful possession of the property.
If that be so, it is for the petitioner to get the decree executed and if the grievance is with regard to any other cause, then to institute a fresh suit.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 SK
(Dilip Gupta, J.)
(Neeraj Tiwari, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appropriate remedy exists to address interference in property possession after obtaining a decree.
Narendra Singh
State Of U.P.
Dilip Gupta
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
