Disposed

Satyanarayan v. Civil Judge J.D. Kuchaman City and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2013CW/827/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction on 14.2.2013 after hearing all parties, without being influenced by previous orders, though the writ petition itself was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; direction to trial court to decide temporary injunction application on 14.2.2013 after hearing all parties.

Satyanarayan Vs Civil Judge J.D. Kuchaman City and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

: O R D E R :

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.827/2013

¶5

Satyanarayan

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagaur & Ors.

¶8

Date of Order ::01.02.2013

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶11

Mr. A.K. Dhera, for the petitioner.

¶12

BY THE COURT:

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2012 whereby the learned trial court while considering the prayer for passing ad-interim injunction has recorded a finding that the petitioner has no prima facie case in his favour. Thereafter, the Court has ruled that without commenting on the merits of the case, the application for adinterim relief is rejected.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter the matter has been adjourned from time to time and now on 30.1.2013, the respondents No.2 and 3 have filed reply to the temporary injunction application, but still the Municipality, Kuchaman City has not filed any reply to the temporary injunction application.

¶15

Keeping in view the fact that the injunction essentially is being sought against the respondents No.2 & 3 and a consequential direction is being sought against the Municipality

¶16

¶17

and now a reply to the temporary injunction application has already been filed before the trial court, no interference is called for in the order impugned and it would be in fitness of things that the trial court is directed to decide the temporary injunction application after hearing all the parties on the next date of hearing which is said to be 14.2.2013, fixed by the trial court.

¶18

In view of the above, it is directed that the learned trial court would dispose of the application for temporary injunction on the next date of hearing i.e. 14.2.2013. The Municipality, Kuchaman City may also file its reply by then. It goes without saying that while deciding the temporary injunction application, the court shall neither be influenced by its order dated 19.12.2012 nor the order being passed by this Court in this writ petition. The petitioner may serve a copy of this order on all the respondents before next date of hearing fixed before the trial court.

¶19

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶21

rm/-

Satyanarayan v. Civil Judge J.D. Kuchaman City and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan v. Civil Judge J.D. Kuchaman City and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Ins Co. Vs Mohan Kanwar and Anr.

Tiloka Ram Vs Shiv Prakash and Anr.

Dhannu Vs Smt.Sarla Devi

Sushil Kumar Vs Lrs of Smt. Ranjana Ben and Ors.

Jeev Raj Manoj Kumar Vs Brahma Prakash

Hakma Ram Vs Gowaram and Anr.