Disposed

Fayyaz Ahmad v. Civil Judge. (J.D), Kaisarganj, Bahraich and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2024CLRE/22/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision challenging an ex parte interim injunction. Liberty was granted to file an application to vacate the order, with compliance and venue for other proceedings clarified.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to seek vacation of the impugned order within six weeks of presentation.

Fayyaz Ahmad vs Civil Judge. (J.D)… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30986

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 22 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Fayyaz Ahmad

¶5

Opposite Party :- Civil Judge. (J.D), Kaisarganj, Bahraich And 2 Others

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Dileep Kumar Yadav,Basant Lal Yadav,Dheeraj Kumar Yadav

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for revisionist. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite parties stands dispensed with.

¶9

Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed challenging order dated 07.03.2024 passed in regular Suit No. 554 of 2024, Smt. Shaqira Begum versus Fayyaz Ahmad and others whereby an appropriate order under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been passed restraining the defendant/revisionist from raising any construction or demolishing any such construction comprised in the suit property indicated in the plaint.

¶10

It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed in an ex parte manner and despite the fact that the next date fixed on 22.03.2024, directions for compliance of interim injunction has been made on 20.03.2024 predating the proceedings itself. It is submitted that the aforesaid suit has been filed for permanent injunction in which impugned order has been passed whereas revisionist has also filed a suit for partition registered as regular Suit No. 2530 of 2024 in which also an interim injunction has been granted on 28.03.2024 but in violation thereof and under the guise of the order dated 07.03.2024, the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 themselves are raising construction over the property in question.

¶11

It has also been submitted that the aforesaid construction is therefore in violation of the interim injunction granted in the suit for partition between parties in which the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 are also party.

¶12

Considering the aforesaid submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the impugned order dated 07.03.2024 has been passed ex parte after issuing notices to revisionist/defendant.

¶13

In view of such matter, liberty is granted to revisionist to file an appropriate application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code seeking vacation of the order dated 07.03.2024. In case such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of six weeks from the date of his presentation after affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. In case of any violation of interim injunction granted by any Court, the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code are always available to such plaintiff which may be availed of by revisionist.

¶14

Considering aforesaid directions, the revision stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.4.2024 Satish

¶16

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

Fayyaz Ahmad v. Civil Judge. (J.D), Kaisarganj, Bahraich and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fayyaz Ahmad v. Civil Judge. (J.D), Kaisarganj, Bahraich 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ghanshyam Rajaram Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector Dist. Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Vinay Samaj Sewa Shiksha Sansthan,Bajehara,Ps Soharamau,Unnao Thru. Manager Vinay Singh Vs Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lko. and 3 Others

Hema Pandey vs Additional Principal Judge Court No.8 Family Court, Lucknow and Anr.

Ansar Nawaz Khan vs U.P. Waqf Tribunal Lucknow, and others

Smt. Asha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 3 Others