Disposed

Kiran Bharati v. Santosh Kumar

Allahabad HC27 May 2019A227/4326/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Article 227 petition, the High Court set aside a District Judge's non-speaking order granting status quo in a civil appeal. The High Court emphasized the necessity of considering ingredients for interim relief and directed the appellate court to decide the appeal within four months while preventing eviction of the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.04.2019 set aside; direction to decide Civil Appeal No.15 of 2019 within four months; eviction of respondent stayed for four months.

Kiran Bharati Vs Santosh Kumar — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 59 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4326 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kiran Bharati Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Hari Shanker Counsel for Respondent :- Indra Deo Mishra,Shri Ram (Rawat)

¶2

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Sri I. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

¶4

An Original Suit No.409 of 2013 (Santosh Kumar Vs. Ram Prakash and others) was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction and for specific performance. In the aforesaid suit, the defendant-petitioner filed a counter claim. The suit was dismissed and the counter claim was decreed by a detailed judgment running in about 79 pages passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadohi-Gyanpur. Aggrieved with this judgment, the plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Appeal No.15 of 2019 (Santosh Kumar Vs. Ramprakash and others) in which the impugned non-speaking order dated 30.04.2019 has been passed by the District Judge, Bhadohi-Gyanpur directing for status quo with respect to the disputed property. The necessary ingredients for grant of interim relief has not been even touched by the District Judge, Bhadohi-Gyanpur while passing the impugned order.

¶5

Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. However, to meet the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to direct the appellate court below to decide the appeal within a short time.

¶6

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of directing the concerned court below to decide the Civil Appeal No.15 of 2019 in accordance with law, within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶7

For a period of four months or till the appeal is decided, which ever is earlier, the plaintiff-respondent shall not be evicted.

¶8

The impugned order dated 30.04.2019 in Civil Appeal No.15 of 2019 (Santosh Kumar Vs. Ramprakash and others) is set aside.

¶9

Order Date :- 27.5.2019/Nitin Verma

Kiran Bharati v. Santosh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Bharati v. Santosh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satendra Kumar Vs Naveen Kumar @ Sonu and Another

Ram Awadh Yadav @ Nihori Yadav Vs Ram Ashrey Yadav and Another

Mudit Kaushik Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Another

Baldev Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Court NO.16 Azamgarh and 5 Others

Smt. Pratima Saxena Vs Additional Chief Judical Magistrate -12 Allahabad and 3 Others

Neeraj Agrawal Vs Civil Judge and 2 Others