Disposed

Bhagwati Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2019A227/7928/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 227 after the appellate court remanded a temporary injunction matter to the trial court. The Court found no illegality but directed the trial court to decide the application expeditiously within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the impugned order; direction to the trial court to decide the temporary injunction matter within six weeks.

Bhagwati Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7928 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhagwati Prasad And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Bhushan Srivastava,Ram Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2019 passed by the appellate court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.72 of 2015 setting aside the order of the trial court dated 6.10.2015 and remanding the matter relating to temporary injunction to the trial court for fresh consideration.

¶6

The appeal, in which the order has been passed, was filed by Gram Panchayat and State of U.P. The allegation was that the previous Gram Pradhan had colluded with the plaintiffs and the appellate court found that the trial court, without examining as to whether name of the plaintiffs came to be recorded in pursuance of the Patta on basis of which they were claiming right in the suit property and other relevant aspects, granted temporary injunction. Consequently, the appellate court has remanded the matter to the trial court for deciding the application for temporary injunction afresh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order to warrant interference with the same in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submitted that soon after passing of the impugned order, the respondents are trying to interfere in the possession of the petitioners. He further submitted that the trial court be directed to decide the matter relating to temporary injunction within a specified time frame, to which Sri Ajay Kumar Rai holding brief of Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava Advocate has no objection.

¶8

Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned order, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court to decide the matter relating to temporary injunction expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It shall be open to the petitioners to pray for grant of ad interim injunction during pendency of the application for temporary injunction and in which event, the trial court shall consider the said request in accordance with law.

¶9

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶10

Order Date :- 5.11.2019 SL

Bhagwati Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwati Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohammad Yaseen Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gorakhpur and 4 Others

Hariya Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Smt. Jagmani Devi and 4 Others Vs Rajwanti Devi and 4 Others

Jai Singh and 13 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lal Chand and 2 Others Vs Radhey Shyam and 17 Others

Prem Bahadur Singh and Another Vs Hawaldar Singh and 3 Others