Injunction

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 09 February 2011 This query is : Resolved
I have filed a suit for injunction. My client is in the possession over the suit land as on the filing of the date of the suit. The pahanies also filed. The suit land is acquired from my client's father after his death. The defendant is claiming that the property is purchased from my client through a simple sale document, which is unstamped and unregistered. The alleged document is forged one. The Tahasildar is colluded with the defendant. The defendant is influenced person and supported with local surpanch. The defendant and his associates created a false panchanama and local inquiry, without giving notice to my client i.e., the plaintiff issued a proceeding against my client i.e. the plaintiff and entered the name of the defendant in the possessor column of the pahany patrik. The injunction application is heard and injunction is vacated. The court is not considered the principles of natural justice the doctrine of AUDI ALTERM PARTEM. Are there any suitable judgments with regard to the my case. Thanks to one and all gnrsharma@gmail.com

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Kiran Kumar (Expert) 09 February 2011
on one side you said the application has been heard and the injunction is vacated....so how can you say the principle Audi Alteram Partem has not been followed by the court.

in temporary injunction matter concentrate on the fact that whether the plaintiff has approached the court with clean hands?

if the injunction has been vacated then you have a remedy to approach Distt. Court (in appeal)

Amit Minocha (Expert) 10 February 2011
agree with expert

Kirti Kar Tripathi (Expert) 10 February 2011
Mr. Kiran advice is perfect. you can file appeal.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 10 February 2011
Dear experts! my question is that the learned Tahasildar unilaterally without issuing the notice, the pahani entry is changed after filing the suit, by taking bribe from the defendant. There is clear evidence to show that no notice is issued to the plaintiff while changing the name of the plaintiff in pahani patrik. The principle is possession of the vacant land follows with the document. The land is agricultural land more over ancestral land of plaintiff. The defendant is claiming the same land by way of purchase from the plaintiff by showing forged documents i.e. unregistered and unstamped documents. My question is that the Tahasildar is issued a proceeding by violating the principle Audi alterum partem. Therefore the unilateral change in pahani should not consider by the court. If any claim to the defendant he should file a suit for specific performance of contract for the registration of the regular sale deed in his favour. [forgery and other things will be disclosed / proved in trial]

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries