Disposed

Girdhar Prasad Gupta v. Gopal Prasad Gupta

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2022WP227/74/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to recall an order granting temporary injunction with directions to adduce evidence. The court observed a delay by the trial court in framing issues.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by directing the trial court to expedite framing of issues and conclusion of trial.

Girdhar Prasad Gupta Vs Gopal Prasad Gupta — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 74 of 2022

¶5

Girdhar Prasad Gupta S/o Late Goda Sao, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Near Bus Stand Ramanujganj, P.S. and Tahsil Ramanujganj Distt. Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Civil and Revenue Distt.- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

---- Petitioner

Defendant

Versus

Gopal Prasad Gupta S/o Late Bihari Lal, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Nagar Indira Gandhi Ward, Near Bus Stand Ramanujganj, P.S. and Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt.- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶10

Bharat Prasad Gupta S/o Late Bihari Lal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Nagar Indira Gandhi Ward, Near Bus Stand Ramanujganj, P.S. and Tahsil Ramanujganj, Distt.- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶11

Laxman Prasad Gupta S/o Late Bihari Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Nagar Indira Gandhi Ward, Near Bus Stand Ramanujganj, P.S. and Tahsil- Ramanujganj Distt.- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Shri Manoj K. Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents : Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

08-08-2022

¶16

Heard.

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant against the order dated 29-11-2021 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Balrampur, District BalrampurRamanujganj whereby the application filed under Section 39(4) read with Section 151 of the CPC for cancellation of order of temporary injunction passed on 12-02-2020 in favour of the plaintiffs directing them to adduce the evidence within three months, which was moved by the petitioner/defendant on 05-02-2021, has been rejected in Civil Suit No.3A/2020 (Gopal Prasad

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

and others Vs. Giridhar Prasad). The petitioner herein is the sole defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for permanent injunction over the suit property bearing survey No.487/2 Rakba 0.4 ½ acres and 488/3 area 0.05 ½ acres total Khasra No.2 total Rakba 0.030 acres. The plaintiffs had moved application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC and the same was partly allowed vide order dated 12-02-2020 and the order was passed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents to maintain status quo and to adduce the evidence within a period of three months.

¶20

The order dated 12-02-2020 was not challenged by the defendant/petitioner before any superior Court, but after three months the petitioner moved application before the trial Court for recalling order as the evidence was not adduced by the plaintiffs within period of three months, that application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29-112021 against which this petition is filed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was filed in the year 2020, but till date the trial Court has not framed issue, whereas, the termporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs with direction to them to adduce evidence within a period of three months. The plaintiffs/respondents are taking benefit of order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court but till date issues have not been framed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by learned trial Court.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the records. It appears from the records that on 12-02-2020 the temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs wherein there is observation of the learned trial Court to grant status quo in favour of the plaintiffs and it was also directed to the plaintiffs to adduce evidence within a period of three months, but till date learned trial Court has not settled the issues which is

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

unfortunate. It is expected from the trial Court that the trial Court will make all endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of six months, till then the order of status quo will remain continue.

¶26

The petition is disposed off.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶29

Aadil

Girdhar Prasad Gupta v. Gopal Prasad Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhar Prasad Gupta v. Gopal Prasad Gupta

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

Niranjan Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aasan @ Aasha Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mrs. Sufiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Smt. Sarla Raman Jogi Vs (a) Rajiv Jogi