Dismissed

K.T.M Infrastucture L.L.P Company Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sanjay Tyagi v. Keeler Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Registerd Thru. Director Sunita Agarwal, Sanjeev Agarwal and Rohit Agarwal

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024FAFO/35/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a first appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against an order rejecting an interim injunction application. The court found no illegality in the lower court's decision, noting lack of original documents and mutation.

What did the court decide?

The first appeal is dismissed as it is misconceived and lacks merit.

K.T.M Infrastucture L.L.P Company Thru… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11275

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 35 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- K.T.M Infrastucture L.L.P Company Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sanjay Tyagi Respondent :- Keeler Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Registerd Thru. Director Sunita Agarwal, Sanjeev Agarwal And Rohit Agarwal Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Kumar Yadav,Santosh Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav,learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7

This first appeal from order has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C. assailing the order dated 06.11.2023, by means of which the interim relief application filed alongwith Regular Suit No.583/2023(KTM Infrastructure LLP versus Keeler Udyog Pvt. Limited) has been rejected.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has purchased the land in dispute bearing Gata No.372/0.4280 hectare from Sanjay, 228/0.1980 hectare from Ashok, 492/0.1060 hectare from Ganesh,491m/0.0725 hectare from Arjun, 176/0.240 hectare from Sri Chandra,310/0.3100 hectare from Shiv Lal,229/0.1140 hectare from Kishan, total 7 kita, total area 1.1665 hectare situated at Village-Hasanpur Khewali, Pargana Biznore, Tehsil Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow through registered sale deed dated 11.11.2022. However, since the respondents are trying to take the physical possession from the appellant therefore the appellant is constrained to file the civil suit for permanent injunction in regard to Gata No.314/0.3100 hectare alongwith an application for temporary injunction, but without considering the pleadings and the material on record, the application for interim injunction has been rejected.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the records.

¶10

Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the appellant is claiming his right over the land in dispute on the basis of the sale deed dated 11.11.2022. However, only certified copy of the same has been placed on record without any explanation as to why the original sale deed has not been placed on record. In the revenue records, the name of Srichandra is recorded on Gata No.314,/0.3100 hectare and the mutation was also not made in favour of the appellant. However, learned counsel for the

¶11

appellant submits that now mutation has been made but admittedly on the date of passing of the impugned order, the mutation was not made in favour of the appellant. It is also noticed that while considering the pleadings of the appellant, the trial court found that the appellant has admitted in paragraph 4 of the pleadings that Sanjay and others have denied to make execution of the sale deed. Thus prima facie case of the appellant is not proved, therefore the question of balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss does not arise.

¶12

This Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned order. However, in case the mutation has been made subsequently in favour of the appellant, though it may not be a ground in absence of original document, however he may avail the appropriate remedy as may be available under law, if any.

¶13

The appeal is mis-conceived and lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 Akanksha

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

K.T.M Infrastucture L.L.P Company Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sanjay Tyagi v. Keeler Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Registerd Thru. Director Sunita Agarwal, Sanjeev Agarwal and Rohit Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.M Infrastucture L.L.P Company Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sanjay Tyagi v. Keeler Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Registerd Thru. Director Sunita Agarwal, Sanjeev Agarwal and Rohit Agarwal

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

Raj Kishore Vs Mazila and Another

Sheetla Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Lucknow and Another

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Manager Vs Sarita Devi and Others

Ram Chandra Jaiswal Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. Lko.Thro.R.M.and Ors.

K.T.M Infrastucture L.L.P Company Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Sanjay Tyagi Vs Keeler Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Registerd Thru. Director Sunita Agarwal, Sanjeev Agarwal and Rohit Agarwal

Smt. Durgawati Vs Jamil AHMADand 4 Ors.