Dismissed

Churaman and Ors. v. Roshanlal and Others

Chhattisgarh HC4 Mar 2010WP227/3039/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the High Court reviewed a trial court order that rejected a temporary injunction in a partition suit among heirs. Counsel submitted evidence recording was pending. The Court excluded comments on merits but directed the trial court to decide the suit within six months. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial court to decide the suit within six months; Writ petition disposed.

Churaman and Ors. Vs Roshanlal and Others — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION (227) No 5o3J /20Q9

¶5

PETITIONERS 1
Plaintiff
^'
3.

¶6

Churaman aged about 24 years, S/o Late Ishwar Lal Sahu,

¶7

Khumesh @ Umesh aged about 21 years, S/o Late Ishwarlal Sahu

¶8

Ku. Parvati @ Puja aged about 14 years D/o Ishwar lal Sahu, being minor through Gurdian brother Churaman,S/o Late Ishwarlal Sahu

¶9

All R/o Village Patpar, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt.Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Roshanlal aged about 27 years, S/o Late Premlal Sahu, Agriculturist,

¶12

RESPONDENTS L
Defendants
^-
^
3.
^
<"
5
^
^
6.
^
7.
-^fi^ff

¶13

Punabati. aged bout 65 years, W/o Premlal Sahu,

¶14

Both R/o Village Patpar, Tahsil Dongargarh,

¶15

Distt. Rajnandgaon

¶16

Devkuwar, aged about 40 years, W/o Goverdhandas Sahu, R/o Village Pinkapara, Uptahsil Churiya, Distt. Rajnandgaon

¶17

Meena Bai aged about 37 years, W/o Rajendra Kumar Sahu,

¶18

Rajendra aged about 38 years, S/o Sudarshan Sahu, Both i.e. 4 and 5 R/o Village Shikaritola, Tahsil Churiya, Distt. Rajnandgaon

¶19

Padmabai aged about 36 years, W/o Deenu Sahu,

¶20

Deenu Sahu aged about 37 years, S/o Moujiram Sahu Respondent no. 6 and 7 R/o Village Ghughwa, Salhe, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon

¶21

/•
^

¶22

10 <

¶23

Savitribai aged about 31 years, W/o Rikhiram Sahu, R/o Village Kursipar, Tahsil Dongargaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon , Motim Bai aged bout 29 years, W/o Annudas Sahu

¶24

Annudas Sahu aged about 31 yearsS/o Dubaluram, Respondent no. 9 and 10 R/o VillageLalbahadur Nagar, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Distt. Rajnandgoan (C.G.)

¶25

WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

¶26

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶27

¶28

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶29

Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mlshra

¶30

Writ Petition (2271 No.3039 / 2009

¶31

PETITIONERS Churaman and others. PLAINBFF

¶32

Versite

¶33

RESPONDENTS Roshanlal and others. DEFENDANTS

¶34

Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petftioners.

¶35

Shri Abhishek Sharma, caveator/respondent No. 1.

¶36

Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. for the State.

¶37

WRIT pErmoN UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTn'UTION OF INEMA

¶38

ORALORDER (04.03.2010)

¶39

The ptaintiff/petitioner has fited a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the defendants. The plaintiff moved an appltoation under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. to restraln the ctefendants from interfering in the plaintiffs possession during the pendency of the surt. The trial Court rejected the prayer for grant of temporary injunction after finding that the dispute is about partltjon of the property amongst the hesrs of Late Premlal and that parties are related to each other and as such the appl'ication for grant of temporary injunction can not be allwved.

¶40

(2) Tbe appellate Court has ateo dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners.

¶41

(3) Counsel for the respondents has submltted that the suit has reached up to the stage of recordir^ of evidence of the parties.

¶42

(4) Wfthout commenting anything about the merits of the case of 1 either partles at this stage of the proceedlngs, this Court direct the trial

¶43

¶44

•^-r

¶45

Court that the suit itself be decldied as eariy as possibte and preferably within a period of six months.

¶46

(5) Wfth this observation, the wnt petition stands disposed of.

¶47

Sd/Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

¶48

Churaman and Ors. v. Roshanlal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Churaman and Ors. v. Roshanlal 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

Similar cases

Nagar Palika Parishad Vs the Bangal Paper Mills

Ram Jatan Singh Vs Kishan and Ors.

Nagar Palika Parisad Kota Vs Bagal Paper Mill Co.Ltd.

Nazima Begum and Others Vs Abdul Zaheer and Others

Subhas Chandra Vs Smt. Munni Devi and Ors.

Bhuwan Sahu and Another Vs Uttam and Others