GYANENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. DINESH KUMRA
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-11
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 03,2012

GYANENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL Appellant
VERSUS
DINESH KUMRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD Mr. Atul Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B. S. Thind, Advocate for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner had filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 7078 of 2001 before this Court with the following prayers:- "(i) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26/28.11.2001 (Annexure '9') passed by the respondent no.2. (ii) issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 not to execute any deed of free hold in favour of the respondent no.3 and 4 in respect of any part of the property already converted free hold in favour of the petitioner. (iii) award costs of this writ petition to the petitioner. AND (iv) issue such other and further writs, directions or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case." A learned Single Judge of this Court had passed an interim order on 20.12.2001 in the said writ petition. The operation portion of the said order reads as under:- "In the meantime, both the parties shall maintain status quo till the next date of listing." Consequently, thereafter the matter was being continuously listed but the interim order dated 20.12.2001 was never extended in favour of the petitioner. Almost after ten years, another interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.3.2010. The said interim order reads as under:- "Mr. A. K. Bansak, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. B. S. Thind, Advocate holding brief of Mr. S. K. Jain, Advocate for the respondent nos. 3 and 4. List on 02.04.2010. Till the next date of listing, both the parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession."
(3.) FINALLY the writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 19.12.2011 with certain direction to the parties to maintain the "status quo" till the representation of either party before the concerned authority is decided. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Atul Bansal has stated that in violation of Court's order of "status quo", the respondents are raising construction.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.