Disposed

Rajendra Kumar Goyal and Another v. Bhola Nath @ Bhola Shanker and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2019FAFO/2248/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court disposed of an appeal against the rejection of an interim injunction application. The court did not reinstate the injunction but referred parties to club two pending suits and suggested alternative dispute resolution.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed without reserving the interim injunction; parties to club pending suits.

Rajendra Kumar Goyal and Another Vs Bhola… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2248 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Rajendra Kumar Goyal And Another Respondent :- Bhola Nath @ Bhola Shanker And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Mishra,Anupam Kulshreshtha

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for all the respondents.

¶6

Hence, no notice is necessary.

¶7

The interim injunction application in Suit No.37 of 2019 has been rejected. An earlier suit was instituted by the respondents herein against the appellants herein for cancellation of the sale deed for the property which was alleged to be sold to the appellants by the deceased father of respondent No.1 through own society. It is submitted by Shri Kulshreshtha that society is not in existence any more may that as it may be the better way out that there is a suit already pending, it may be clubbed with the suit instituted by the appellant herein by the respondents, not particular respondent No.1, heir of the vendor.

¶8

It is submitted by Shri Kulshreshtha that the court below has rightly rejected the application

¶9

Ext. 6-A. However, as there is a dispute regarding the property is concerned, it is submitted by Shri Kulshreshtha that state is asked for huge junk of land even if it is believed that the same land was sold by the father of respondent No.1 to the appellants through the society it did not cover the entire land which is made part of the litigation now been the suit being suit No.37 of 2019.

¶10

A workable solution was suggested to both the counsels, namely, that as far as the disputed properties are concerned, at this stage, the party shall maintain status quo for the property which is not in dispute and the possession of respondents which have not been alleged to be sold, there shall be no encumbrance. It is made clear that as the litigation is of the year 1984, the first litigation the Civil Judge may try alternative methods also for redressal of the grievances as per Section 89 of the C.P.C..

¶11

With this modification this appeal is disposed of .

¶12

It is hoped that the trial court would club both the suits, parties will not seek unnecessary adjournment and see that both the suits are expeditiously disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 22.10.2019 / A.N. Mishra

Rajendra Kumar Goyal and Another v. Bhola Nath @ Bhola Shanker and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Goyal and Another v. Bhola Nath @ Bhola Shanker and 2 Others

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

Km. Taseerunnisha Vs Mahesh Chandra Gupta and Others

Smt. Akbari Begum and Others Vs U.P.S.R.T.C.

Girish Chandra Vs Dropati Devi and 2 Others

Smt. Shakeela Begum and Others Vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Vs Zubeda Khatoon and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Krishna Devi and Another