Dinesh Kumar and Others v. Suryanarayan Tripathi and Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2024SAPL/209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court admitted an appeal against a dismissal of a specific performance suit. The court stayed the impugned judgment passing show cause notices to other respondents and summoned the lower court record to consider if the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding limitation.

What did the court decide?

Stayed of the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.09.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2006 till further orders.

Dinesh Kumar and Others vs Suryanarayan Tripathi and… — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 209 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar And Others Respondent :- Suryanarayan Tripathi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Om Prakash Mani Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri OPM Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/Suryanarayan Tripathi.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent was dismissed on several grounds including the ground of limitation while deciding the issue no. 6 framed in this regard. However, the learned lower appellate court without considering the issue of limitation and framing proper points for determination, allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the trial Court, which could not have been done without deciding the issue of limitation.

¶7

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the suit was filed within limitation from the date of cause of action as shown in the plaint but the learned trial court had not considered the same while deciding the same. However, he could not dispute that the lower appellate court has not considered the same, but, he submits that the lower appellate court has rightly and in accordance with law decided the appeal because the land in dispute does not come under the provisions of Consolidation Act.

¶8

The matter requires consideration.

¶9

The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

¶10

Whether the lower appellate court could have decided the appeal without considering and setting aside the findings recorded by the trial Court in regard to the limitation, on which also the suit was dismissed?

¶11

Whether the lower appellate court has not decided the appeal in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code and without framing proper points for determination?

¶12

Issue notice to the respondent nos. 2 to 13.

¶13

Summon the lower court record.

¶14

Steps be taken within a week.

¶15

The impugned judgement and decree dated 07.09.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2006; Suryanarayan Tripathi and Others Vs. Amar Pal (Dead) and others by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 2, Pratapgarh is stayed till further orders.

¶16

List along with service report in the month of February, 2025.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.12.2024 Anurag

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dinesh Kumar and Others v. Suryanarayan Tripathi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar and Others v. Suryanarayan Tripathi and 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

Ms. Kamar Rizvi and Another vs Smt. Shabih Fatima and Others

Rakesh Kumar and Others vs Shishupal Singh and Others

National Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow Thru. Manager / Assistant Manager vs Sonashree and Others

Jang Bahadur vs State of U.P. through Collector Ambedkar Nagar

Ram Kripal and Another vs Mst. Reeta Devi and Another

Irshad and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another