Dismissed

Kauloo @ Kawalu v. First Addl District Judge Usnagar and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC1 Jul 2006WPMS/562/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order granting a temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction. The court upheld the appellate court's order, noting it had recorded findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

What did the court decide?

Suit expedited to be disposed within six months; writ petition dismissed.

Kauloo @ Kawalu Vs First Addl District… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Uttarakhand HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT

¶2

NAINITAL

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 562 (MS) OF 2006

¶4

Kauloo @ Kawalu S/o Sri Sita, R/o Village Bhagchuri, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. ……………Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

First Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur).

¶7

Jeeut, S/o Shri Bhagpat,

¶8

R/o Village Bhagchuri, Tehsil Khatima,

¶9

District Udham Singh Nagar.

¶10

Smt. Ramrati, W/o Shri Jeeut, R/o Village Bhagchuri, Tehsil- Khatima,

¶11

District- Udham Singh Nagar. ………….Respondents.

¶12

Dated: 01.07.2006

¶13

Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

¶14

Heard Sri K.S. Bora, Advocate for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶15

By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 02.05.2006 passed by 1^st Addl. District Judge Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Misc. Civil Appeal No.23 of 2005 Jeeut Vs. Devnath and others.

¶16

Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondents praying for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also preferred an application for temporary injunction under Section 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶17

Civil Judge (Jr. Division), vide order dated 31^st March, 2006 has rejected the said application on the ground that the

¶18

plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

¶19

The plaintiff went in appeal. The appellate Court has granted the injunction. Against the grant of injunction, present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

Since the appellate Court has recorded the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the plaintiffs and has found that the canal being source of irrigation for the plots of the plaintiff goes to his own land.

¶21

I , therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the appellate Court.

¶22

However, the Suit No. 14 of 2005 jeeut & another Vs. Devnath and another is expedited. It is directed that the said suit shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶23

Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶24

(Rajesh Tandon, J.)

¶25

01.07.2006 Rathour

Kauloo @ Kawalu v. First Addl District Judge Usnagar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kauloo @ Kawalu v. First Addl District Judge Usnagar and Ors.

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

Virender Kumar Vs Regional Officer Central Board

Amit Dabral Vs Uttaranchal Shiksha Parishad and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Arya Vs Shiksha Evam Pariksha Parishad

Km. Meenakshi Dugama Vs Secretary Uttaranchal Shiksha Evam Pariksha Parish

Anoop Tuteja Vs Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Ors.

Dinesh Singh Vs Court of First Civil Judge J.D