Disposed

Smt Radha Chaurasia and Another v. Kartikey Yadav and 6 Others

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022FAFO/1350/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the first appeal against an injunction order. It held no ground for interference existed but directed the trial court to expedite the suit for decision within six months of producing the certified copy.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of directing the court below to decide the Original Suit No. 125 of 2021 within six months of producing the certified copy of this order.

Smt Radha Chaurasia and Another Vs Kartikey Yadav and 6… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1350 of 2022 Appellant :- Smt Radha Chaurasia And Another Respondent :- Kartikey Yadav And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Saran,Radhey Shyam

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondent no. 1 and perused the record.

¶7

This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 26.03.2022, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, Etawah, in Original Suit No. 125 of 2021 (Kartikey Yadav vs. Smt. Radha Chaurasia and another) by which 6-C(2) application filed by the plaintiffrespondent no. 1 was allowed and the defendants-appellants were restrained not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 in respect of suit property shown as letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P in the plaint map.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession over the suit property. It is further submitted that the tenancy of appellants has not been terminated and the appellants, who are defendants in the suit are in actual possession and the learned trial court had erred in passing the injunction order in favour of plaintiff.

¶9

Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has submitted that the possession of the plaintiff was admitted by the defendants in their written statement and the learned court below after considering the material and evidence which are available on record had primafacie found that the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is in possession over the suit property and has rightly passed the injunction order in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 in respect of suit property.

¶10

Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the

¶11

parties and perused the record.

¶12

The learned court below has recorded the finding in respect of possession in favour of plaintiff-respondent no. 1 after considering the evidence and materials, which are available on record, as well as admission of defendants in respect of possession of plaintiff and there is no illegality in any manner. No ground for interference is made out.

¶13

However, since, the defendant had already put in appearance before the court below, it is appropriate that the Original Suit No. 125 of 2021 (Kartikey Yadav vs. Smt. Radha Chaurasia and another) be decided expeditiously. Accordingly, the first appeal from order is disposed of directing the court below to expedite the aforesaid suit and if possible to decide within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, without granting any undue adjournment to either of the parties, unless, there is any legal impediment.

¶14

Order Date :- 30.8.2022

¶15

sailesh

¶16

Digitally signed by SAILESH PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.08.30 17:06:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Radha Chaurasia and Another v. Kartikey Yadav and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Radha Chaurasia and Another v. Kartikey Yadav and 6 Others

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

Ashish Gugral Vs Sukhchain Singh and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Goyal Vs Anupama Goyal

O.I.C. Ltd. Vs Ram Rakshpal Singh and Others

Vijay Kanodia and Another Vs Damodar Kumar Jhunjhunwala

Yamin @ Chaman Vs Jalil and 4 Others

Jaiveer Singh Permar Vs Dinesh Sahni