Jagdhari and Others Vs. Vth Addl. Distt. Judge, Azamgarh and Another

Jagdhari and Others vs Vth Addl. Distt. Judge, Azamgarh and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 31, 1992

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/456318

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/456318
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju, J.
Decided On: Mar 31, 1992
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11964 of 1992
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil - interim Orders - Order 39 Rules 1 and 3 of Code of civil Procedure, 1908 - suit for permanent injunction filed - suit dismissed in default - held, all interim Orders come to an end till the restoration of suit - Petition Dismissed. ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 34

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagdhari and Others

Advocate Shri Uma Kant, Adv.

Respondent

Vth Addl. Distt. Judge, Azamgarh and Another

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 34
Reported In: AIR1992All368

Excerpt

civil - interim orders - order 39 rules 1 and 3 of code of civil procedure, 1908 - suit for permanent injunction filed - suit dismissed in default - held, all interim orders come to an end till the restoration of suit - petition dismissed. .....order1. the petitioners filed a suit forpermanent injunction against the respondents for restraining them from interferring with their possession over the plot in dispute. a temporary injunction application was also filed, and an injunction was granted by the order dt. 4-9-90. subsequently the suit was dismissed for default on 8-1-91. thereafter a restoration application was filed, and subsequently an order dt. 15-2-91 (annexure iv) was passed by the trial court declining to grant temporary injunction. against the order dt. 15-2-91 the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent no. 1 holding that since the suit had been dismissed for default on 8-1 -91, no temporary injunction could be granted unless the suit is restored.2. the restoration application filed by the petitioners was also dismissed for default on 2-4-91 and thereafter an application was moved to recall the order dt. 2-4-91, which is still pending.3. by means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dt. 15-2-91 and 13-12-91 (annexures iv and v).4. in my opinion, the impugned orders are correct and call for no interference. once the suit is dismissed, whether for default or otherwise, all interim orders came to an end. since there is no suit pending at present, hence there is no question of grant' of any interim injunction. in the circumstances, i reject this writ petition but direct that the application filed by the petitioners to set aside the order dt. 2-4-91 should be decided within three weeks of production of a certified copy of this order before the trial court. if this application is allowed then the petitioners first restoration application should be decided within another three weeks thereafter, and if that is also allowed, the temporary injunction application should be decided within three weeks thereafter.5. with these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.6. petition dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The petitioners filed a suit forpermanent injunction against the respondents for restraining them from interferring with their possession over the plot in dispute. A temporary injunction application was also filed, and an injunction was granted by the order dt. 4-9-90. Subsequently the suit was dismissed for default on 8-1-91. Thereafter a restoration application was filed, and subsequently an order dt. 15-2-91 (Annexure IV) was passed by the trial Court declining to grant temporary injunction. Against the order dt. 15-2-91 the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent No. 1 holding that since the suit had been dismissed for default on 8-1 -91, no temporary injunction could be granted unless the suit is restored.

2. The restoration application filed by the petitioners was also dismissed for default on 2-4-91 and thereafter an application was moved to recall the order dt. 2-4-91, which is still pending.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the orders dt. 15-2-91 and 13-12-91 (Annexures IV and V).

4. In my opinion, the impugned orders are correct and call for no interference. Once the suit is dismissed, whether for default or otherwise, all interim orders came to an end. Since there is no suit pending at present, hence there is no question of grant' of any interim injunction. In the circumstances, I reject this writ petition but direct that the application filed by the petitioners to set aside the order dt. 2-4-91 should be decided within three weeks of production of a certified copy of this order before the trial Court. If this application is allowed then the petitioners first restoration application should be decided within another three weeks thereafter, and if that is also allowed, the temporary injunction application should be decided within three weeks thereafter.

5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

6. Petition dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1992 Same Parties Jagdhari and Others vs Vth Addl. Distt. Judge, Azamgarh and A... Same Subject Civil Same Judge M. Katju, J. Acts & Sections Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2...

Civil