CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE (INCHARGE)
LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-324
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on
April 27,2006
CANTONMENT BOARD
Appellant
VERSUS
District Judge (Incharge)
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ARYA PRATINIDHI SABHA V. MANMOHAN TEWARI [REFERRED TO]VENKATASUBBIAH NAIDU V. S. CHALLAPPAN AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD LOHAR AND ORS. V. STATE OF U. P. AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
DEBI DAS V. STATE OF U. P [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR MISRA V. RAJENDRA KUMAR AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
S. S. KHANNA V. F. J. DILLON [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR S S KHANNA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. BRIG F J DILLON IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG DHONDI CHOUGULE VS. MARUTI HARI JADHAV [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV DAS SHIVLAL VS. FILMISTAN DISTRIBUTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
D L F HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P LIMITED NEW DELHI VS. SARUP SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ GOPAL MATHUR VS. KISHAN GOPAL MATHUR [REFERRED TO]
GAMMON INDIA LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K BALASUBRAMANIA CHETTY VS. N M SAMBANDAMOORTHY CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
MAMLESHWAR PRASAD VS. KANHAIYA LAL DEAD [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT LIMITED CHANDIGARH MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED VS. SURESH CHAND:N K SAXENA [REFERRED TO]
MANICK CHANDRA NANDY VS. DEBDAS NANDY [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
JOHRI SINGH VS. SUKH PAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DORAB CAWASJI WARDEN VS. COOMI SORAB WARDEN [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN KUMAR SINGHANIA MAHESH D PATHAK NITIN D WAKANKAR NAVNEET GOEL S VENKATESWAR DINESH KUMAR SINGH ROHIT CHOUDHARY ANIL KANT R MANJUNATHASWAMY ARUN KUMAR RAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DALPAT KUMAR VS. PRAHLAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
K URMILA VS. RAM KUMAR VERMA [REFERRED TO]
RAMGOPALBAHETI VS. GIRIDHARILALSONI [REFERRED TO]
SARNAM SINGH VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
A VENKATASUBBIAH NAIDU VS. S CHALLAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
UNIPLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNICORN PLYWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA VS. MUKUNDI LAL [REFERRED TO]
NEELKANTH VS. MALLIKA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANI VS. BHUPENDRA N PATEL [REFERRED TO]
HARSHAVARDHAN CHOKKANI VS. BHUPENDRA N PATEL [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SHAKTI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY NAGPUR VS. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KALIKA KUER alias KALIKA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. RATAN LAL ARORA [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
GAYATARI DEVI VS. SHASHI PAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
H BEVIS AND CO VS. RAM BEHARI [REFERRED TO]
JUPITER CHIT FUND PRIVATE LTD VS. DWARIKA DHISH DAYAL [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. BRIJ MOHAN AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
URMILA DEVI VS. NAGAR NIGAM LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
GURU DUTT VS. ANUJ KHATRI [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD VS. RAMJAS RAM [REFERRED TO]
SULTAN LEATHER FINISHERS P LTD VS. A D J [REFERRED TO]
KHAJAN SINGH VS. BRIJENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LUCKNOW DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION VS. B C JAIN [REFERRED TO]
HAIDER ABBAS VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RAIS KHAN VS. NASEEB ULLAH KHAN [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNA UDAYAR VS. VASUDEVA AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE AND 11 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2007-2-288] [REFERRED TO]Dharamraj alias Dharmu Yadav VS. District Judge, Ambedkar Nagar & Ors. [LAWS(ALL)-2009-2-197] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BALI MISHRA VS. SIYA DEVI @ VAKILIN [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-192] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. -
(1.)Controversy relates to interpretation of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether against an order issuing notice to defendants on an application for temporary injunction filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be maintainable is the question involved in the present writ petition?
(2.)PLAINTIFFS opposite parties No. 2 to 6 had filed a Regular Suit No. 129 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Lucknow for permanent injunction. According to plaintiffs they are migrants from Pakistan and settled in this country during the partition years. The Government of India had rehabilitated them in various parts of the country. According to plaintiff respondents, the Cantonment Board had allotted to plaintiffs family the shops in question. They have got certain gumties on Nehru Road near Sadar Bazar Chauraha, Cantonment Lucknow, alleged to be allotted to them by the defendants. Notices were issued to them by the Cantonment Board to vacate the premises in question. The employees of Board had tried to demolish the premises in question. It has been pleaded in the plaint (Annexure -4) under Para 8 that on 4.2.2006 the defendants employees had tried to demolish the shops in question, feeling aggrieved they have preferred the suit.
Learned trial court by order dated 8.2.2006 issued notices to defendants including the petitioner of the present writ petition on the application for temporary injunction. In the order dated 8.2.2006 filed as Annexure -5 to the writ petition it has been observed by learned trial court that for identical dispute already a Regular Suit is pending in which a temporary injunction was granted and is in operation. The trial court had fixed 23.2.2006 for further proceeding.
(3.)SINCE , no injunction was granted by learned trial court feeling aggrieved the plaintiff respondents had preferred a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 8.2.2006 before the District Judge, Lucknow. The revision was heard by learned officiating District Judge, Lucknow on 20.2.2006. Out of eight plaintiffs three namely Ravindra Kumar Dhawan, Mamta Dhawan and Swarnkanta (plaintiff No. 2, 4 and 5) had not preferred a revision nor they were arrayed as party. Learned District Judge, at admission stage by common order admitted the revision and decided finally directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature of possession of property in question. Learned Incharge District Judge, Lucknow had also directed the trial court to decide the application of temporary injunction within a period of one months with liberty to adjourn the case only in very exceptional circumstances.
(2.)PLAINTIFFS opposite parties No. 2 to 6 had filed a Regular Suit No. 129 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Lucknow for permanent injunction. According to plaintiffs they are migrants from Pakistan and settled in this country during the partition years. The Government of India had rehabilitated them in various parts of the country. According to plaintiff respondents, the Cantonment Board had allotted to plaintiffs family the shops in question. They have got certain gumties on Nehru Road near Sadar Bazar Chauraha, Cantonment Lucknow, alleged to be allotted to them by the defendants. Notices were issued to them by the Cantonment Board to vacate the premises in question. The employees of Board had tried to demolish the premises in question. It has been pleaded in the plaint (Annexure -4) under Para 8 that on 4.2.2006 the defendants employees had tried to demolish the shops in question, feeling aggrieved they have preferred the suit.
Learned trial court by order dated 8.2.2006 issued notices to defendants including the petitioner of the present writ petition on the application for temporary injunction. In the order dated 8.2.2006 filed as Annexure -5 to the writ petition it has been observed by learned trial court that for identical dispute already a Regular Suit is pending in which a temporary injunction was granted and is in operation. The trial court had fixed 23.2.2006 for further proceeding.
(3.)SINCE , no injunction was granted by learned trial court feeling aggrieved the plaintiff respondents had preferred a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 8.2.2006 before the District Judge, Lucknow. The revision was heard by learned officiating District Judge, Lucknow on 20.2.2006. Out of eight plaintiffs three namely Ravindra Kumar Dhawan, Mamta Dhawan and Swarnkanta (plaintiff No. 2, 4 and 5) had not preferred a revision nor they were arrayed as party. Learned District Judge, at admission stage by common order admitted the revision and decided finally directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature of possession of property in question. Learned Incharge District Judge, Lucknow had also directed the trial court to decide the application of temporary injunction within a period of one months with liberty to adjourn the case only in very exceptional circumstances.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.