Supreme Court of India
RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL & ORS. versus RAJESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.
- Decided
- 29 February 2008
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [2008] 3 S.C.R. 642 · 2008 INSC 274
- Also cited as
- (2008) 12 SCC 144
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. F
p. 643
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 {r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC')
p. 643
Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit (suit No.445of1999) for three reliefs: (i) The sale deed executed by defendant-respondent H no.1 on 22.2.1999 in favour of defendant-respondent no.3 be declared as void. (ii) a permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the property in dispute. (iii) Another permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1, 2 and 4 from letting, selling and disposing of the property.
pp. 643–644
An application for injunction was also filed. On 4.5.1999 ex-parte order of injunction was granted. The prayer to modify the same was rejected. On 24.11.2001 a consent order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench directed disposal of the suit within six months and further directed maintenance of status quo of the suit property till its disposal on certain conditions. Subsequently, application was filed by respondent no.4 by making a grievance that her counsel was not heard. It is the stand of the appellants that her defence was struck off. In any event the order was recalled on 9.1.2002. High Court dismissed the appeal holding prayer for interim injunction.
p. 644, margin C
It is stated by learned counsel for the appellants that the order of status quo continued for nine years and by the impugned order the position has been changed. The conditions stipulated are really of no consequential relevance, as in that case during pendency of the case there may be a necessity for impleading the vendees.
p. 644, margin E
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that the order is really one of concurrence and, therefore, there was no need to repeat the reasoning.
p. 644, margin F
We find that the order of status quo continued for considerable length of time. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct maintenance of status quo as was originally granted .. . by order dated 24.11.2001. We make it clear that by giving this A protection it shall not be construed as if we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We request the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as practicable preferably by the end of 2008.
pp. 644–645, margin G
The appeal is accordingly disposed with no order as to costs. S.K.S. Appeal disposed of. .. ---
p. 645