Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2534 of 2018 Petitioner :- Abhishek Tripathi Respondent :- Chanakyapuri Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Pande,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Tandon
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Shri Rakesh Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner, Shri Atul Dayal, holding brief of Shri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 6.2.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Appeal No. 50 of 2017 (Smt. Anita and another vs. Abhishek Tripathi) and Misc. Appeal No. 63 of 2017 (Abhishek Tripathi vs. Chanakya Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others). Further prayer has been made for setting aside the trial court's order dated 31.5.2017, whereby the temporary injunction application of the plaintiff-petitioner has been rejected in Original Suit No. 871 of 2017.
The suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner herein for permanent prohibitory injunction being Original Suit No. 871 of 2016. He also filed an application for grant of interim injunction. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4, Ms. Aneeta @ Neetu and Smt. Seema also filed interim injunction application in the suit. Both the interim injunctions applications were rejected by the court below on the ground that the property is not identifiable, and therefore, no parties has been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour and the interim injunction application has been rejected.
Both, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants filed appeal before the lower appellate court challenging the order passed by the trial court refusing injunction in their favour. The appeal of the plaintiff being Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2017 was dismissed by the appellate court and Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2017 filed by the defendant was allowed and the plaintiff was restrained from interfering in possession of the defendant over plot No. 832 Min Rakba Area 682.82 Square Metre.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the respondents at length.
They have taken me through the entire record and have placed documents in their support.
After argument at length, both the parties agreed for the order that is proposed to be passed.
Accordingly, it is provided that the plaintiff as already directed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and order dated 6.2.2018 shall not interfere in possession of defendants No. 3 and 4, Ms. Anita @ Neeta and Smt. Seema over the plot in question. However, at the same time, the contesting defendants herein shall also not change the nature of the plot in question and will also not create any third party right during the pendency of the trial.
Both the parties requested that the suit itself may be decided expeditiously.
Accordingly, in view of the nature of dispute involved in the present petition, both the parties are at liberty to move an application for expeditious disposal of the suit and the court below shall consider the same application objectively and shall make all efforts to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Sumaira