Allowed

Ramawati Devi v. Civil Judge(J.D.) Kaiserganj, Dist. Bahraich and 9 Others

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024A227/1805/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court directed the Civil Judge to decide an application for temporary injunction expeditiously. The court ordered disposal within six weeks and allowed an interim injunction application within one week due to pending construction altering the property status.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Civil Judge to decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 expeditiously within six weeks.

Ramawati Devi vs Civil Judge(J.D.)… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31178

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1805 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ramawati Devi Respondent :- Civil Judge(J.D.) Kaiserganj, Dist. Bahraich And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sri Niwas Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

In view of proposed order, notices to private respondents stand dispensed with.

¶9

Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (J.D.), Kaiserganj, Bahraich for expeditious disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and under Section 151 C.P.C. filed in Regular Suit No. 2069 of 2023 (Ramwati Devi vs. State of U.P.).

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the aforesaid suit has been filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction in which the application for temporary injunction is pending consideration and as yet only notices in the suit have been issued to the defendants. It is submitted that during pendency of the proceedings, the defendants are raising construction over the property in question which will change its nature and therefore, urgent directions are required to preserve status of the property in question.

¶11

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, it appears that suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the petitioner along with an application for temporary injunction in which notices have been issued to the defendants. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the said suit has been listed for 18.5.2024. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the nature of the suit property is sought to be changed by the defendants, it would be expedient that directions are issued.

¶12

In view of aforesaid submissions, the Civil Judge (J.D.),

¶13

Kaiserganj, Bahraich is directed to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks from the date service report is furnished.

¶14

In view of the urgency indicated by learned counsel for petitioner that construction activity is on going, the trial Court may also consider application for grant of interim injunction within a period of one week from the date of certified copy of this order is produced on record in terms of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in case it is satisfied.

¶15

Benefit of this order shall be available only in case petitioner cooperates in early conclusion of the application/trial.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Shravan

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramawati Devi v. Civil Judge(J.D.) Kaiserganj, Dist. Bahraich and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramawati Devi v. Civil Judge(J.D.) Kaiserganj, Dist. Bahraich 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sultan Vs a.D.C.and Ors.

Ram Chandra and Another Objection Filed Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Ritu Ghosh Sengupta vs Additional Principal JUDGE-8, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Gurmohan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Kheri and 3 Others

Surjan vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Chairman and 10 Others