Disposed

Dayaram and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024WRIC/17549/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition seeking execution of an interim injunction order granted by a civil court. The court held that the appropriate remedy for breach of injunction lies in a civil application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, not in a writ petition invoking inherent powers. The petition was disposed of with liberty to file such an application.

What did the court decide?

Lit liberty granted to file application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.

Dayaram and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114858-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17549 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dayaram And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶7

In pith and substance the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for execution of Injunction order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divsion), Shahganj, Jaunpur in Temporary Injunction application 6(C) in Original Suit No. 724 of 2021 (Dayaram vs. Ram Padarath).

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Temporary Injunction application 6(C) filed by the petitioners in Original Suit No. 724 of 2021 (Dayaram vs. Ram Padarath) was decided by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divsion), Shahganj, Jaunpur with a direction to maintain status quo. Even though the Injunction order dated 20.10.2023 was passed by the learned Civil Judge, but the same is being flouted by the Station House Officer, Shahganj, Jaunpur. Again, the petitioner for getting the order of injunction executed filed an application before the civil

¶9

court and consequently, the Civil Judge (J.D.), Shahganj, Jaunpur has taken cognizance on the application dated 02.04.2024 and directed the Station House Officer, Shahganj, Jaunpur for compliance of its order. He submits that till date order has not been complied and in this regard petitioner has approached Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur by way of filing representation dated 19.04.2024 for taking necessary action against the erring S.H.O. Shahganj, Jaunpur, but the representation is still pending consideration. Aggrieved with the same petitioner approached this Court for getting relief.

¶10

Learned Standing counsel submits that the dispute is between two brothers and ex-parte injunction has been accorded to the petitioners in Original Suit No. 724 of 2021 (Dayaram vs. Ram Padarath), wherein cognizance order has already been taken by the competent court, the same is also annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. He further submits that in case the injunction was flouted by either of the party, it was always open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy available under Order 39 Rule 2 of C.P.C., instead of invoking the inherent power of the Court by filing present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

Considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the factual aspect in the form of objection raised by the learned Standing counsel, once the injunction order was flouted and in spite of availing appropriate remedy available under Order 39 Rule 2 C.P.C., petitioner has filed the present writ petition invoking the inherent power of the Court under Article 226 of

¶12

the Constitution of India, in this backdrop, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The present writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application for breach of injunction as per Order 39 Rule 2A of C.P.C.

¶13

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Bhanu

¶14

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dayaram and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayaram and Another v. State of Up and 3 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

Smt Vicky and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamal Singh and 4 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others

Sharad Kant Sharma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Lb Electronics Ltd. vs State of Up and 2 Others

M/S Gautam Udyog vs State of Up and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others