Disposed

Girdhari Agrawal and 2 Others v. Additional District Judge Court No. 6 Mathura and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2019A227/9473/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an appellate order in a suit for injunction. The court upheld the temporary injunction but expedited the underlying suit to decide within eight months due to conflicting assertions about possession and payments.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the underlying suit was expedited for decision within eight months.

Girdhari Agrawal and 2 Others Vs Additional District… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9473 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Girdhari Agrawal And 2 Others Respondent :- Additional District Judge Court No. 6 Mathura And Another

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshu Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the order of the appellate court whereby the temporary injunction application (Paper No.7-Ga) moved by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.30 of 2016 (Renu Tiwari v. Girdhari Agrawal & Ors.) has been allowed in part, restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit property except in accordance with law.

¶7

However, the prayer made by the plaintiff of interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property has not been acceded to.

¶8

It appears that the plaintiff has filed the suit for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession over the suit property on the plea of alleged oral agreement to sell. The defendants had, however, admitted that the plaintiff had entered into the possession of the suit property as a licensee by them and for some period the plaintiff had paid rent to the defendant.

¶9

In view of the said admitted facts reflected from the record, no infirmity can be attached to the order of the Appellate Court allowing temporary injunction application in part.

¶10

However, noticing the assertion of the petitioner that the suit property is a flat, of which, the plaintiff has kept possession without making any payment to the defendant, the proceedings of the suit namely Original Suit No.30 of 2016 (Renu Tiwari v. Girdhari Agrawal & Ors.) is expedited and the court below is directed to make an endeavour to decide the same, preferably, within eight months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶11

The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.1.2019 Jyotsana

Girdhari Agrawal and 2 Others v. Additional District Judge Court No. 6 Mathura and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhari Agrawal and 2 Others v. Additional District Judge Court No. 6 Mathura and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Megha Jadhav Vs Additional District Judge CT.NO.14 and Others

Virendra Narayan Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Lavli Sharma Vs Dinesh Kumar and 2 Others

Mahipal Singh and 5 Others Vs Som Singh and Another

Rajiv Sharma Vs Smt.Gauri Sharma Alias Garuna Garuna Sharma

Smt. Arti Vs Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court NO.1 Muzaffarnagar and 3 Others