Bechuram v. Shyam Lal and Others
Case brief
What is this about?
In this Article 226 writ petition, the petitioner challenged a District Judge's order allowing an appeal and granting an injunction in a property dispute. The High Court stayed the impugned order pending return of affidavits.
What did the court decide?
Stayed the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the District Judge.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1614 of 2024
Petitioner :- Bechuram Respondent :- Shyam Lal And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Shri Nagendra Bahaur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the District Judge, Pratapgarh dated 16.03.2024, whereby he has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and has injuncted the petitioner from interfering in the peaceful possession of the disputed property. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from allowing the appeal and passing an order of injunction against petitioner, the learned District Judge has also directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patti, DistrictPratapgarh as well as Inspector Incharge, Police Station-Patti, District Pratapgarh to ensure the compliance of this order. He further submits that the such an order is not envisaged to be passed while allowing the appeal. On merits of the case, he submits that the trial court did not find any ingredients to pass order under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in favour of the respondents and consequently the application was rejected. It is also stated that the appellate court has not considered any of the necessary ingredients for allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and consequently the matter requires consideration.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
WCHALLENGE TO INJUNCTION ORDER AND COMPCISANS ORDER IN CIVIL APPEAL.
WHETHER INJUNCTION ORDER REJECTED IN PETITION NO FES.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Bechuram
- respondent
Shyam Lal
Coram
Alok Mathur
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- A227/1614/2024
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Lko. Thru. Its Registrar Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner -I /Oic,Regional Office, Lko. and 2 Others
Sangam Construction Company,Prayagraj Thru. Its Partner Shailandra Bahadur Singh Vs the Presiding Officer Commercial Court-I, Lko. and 4 Others
Pradeep Kumar Pandey and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 9 Others
Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.