Dismissed

Usha Chauhan v. Vishram and 9 Others

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2020WRIC/11901/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a suit pending in the Civil Court at Azamgarh was dismissed. The petitioner sought status quo regarding alleged encroachment on ancestral property where respondents were digging a foundation for a toilet. The court found no case for interference as the petitioner failed to object to a long adjournment or apply for urgent hearing in the subordinate court.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing the writ petition for failure to demonstrate a case for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

Usha Chauhan Vs Vishram and 9 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11901 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Usha Chauhan Respondent :- Vishram And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kirit Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Kirit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed to direct the opposite parties to maintain status quo on the spot and the abadi land and issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit is pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), District- Azamgarh bearing no. 1378 of 2019. This suit was filed in November 2019, but hearing on application for injunction could not be completed and in the meanwhile some encroachment has been made by the opposite party which has necessitated filing of this writ petition.

¶8

Copies of the order sheets have been filed as Annexure-5 and it is apparent that on 22.01.2020, newspaper showing service of notices through publication on the opposite party was produced before the Court. On 24.01.2020, presiding officer was on leave. On 28.01.2020, after publication, defendants were given last opportunity to appear and argue the application contained in 7C-2. Case was listed for 22.02.2020.

¶9

On 22.02.2020, counsel for the plaintiff i.e., the present petitioner did not appeared before the Court to press for the application and therefore, case was listed on 28.02.2020. On 28.02.2020, plaintiff was heard ex-parte on the said application and therefore, case was listed on 16.04.2020. On 29.02.2020, vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 to 4.

¶10

In the meanwhile, due to covid situation, hearing of the application could not be completed and case is pending, in view of such facts, aforesaid relief has been sought.

¶11

A perusal of the plaint reveals that plaintiff has presented a case showing interference in her ancestral property inherited from her grandfather-in-law whereas on record, there is an application filed on behalf of the applicant contained in

¶12

Annexure-6 wherein it is specifically mentioned that defendants are digging a foundation on Government land to construct a toilet (latrine). In view of such facts, documents filed by the petitioner himself reveals that no case is made out to show any indulgence in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. At this stage, especially when plaintiff himself has failed to take an objection for grant of such a long adjournment on 28.02.2020 and has not been able to show that after appearance of the defendants on 29.02.2020, he moved any application for urgent hearing seeking decision on application 7C-2, no case for interference is made out.

¶13

In view of such facts, when appreciated cumulatively, no case of indulgence is made out.

¶14

Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.8.2020 Vikram/-

Usha Chauhan v. Vishram and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Chauhan v. Vishram and 9 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

Satyapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hemant Kumar Malviya Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Nirmala Devi Vs Commissioner Varanasi Mandal and 7 Others

Mist Direct Sales Private Limited Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Vijay Pal Vs State of U P and 9 Others