Himachal Pradesh HC Rejects Case for Prohibition and Injunction, Finds Case Infructuous

Must Read

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Follow us

Excerpt

In the case, the Petitioner prayed for relief for prohibiting the Respondents from conducting construction and causing illegal interference on the suit land. The suit was going on over a dispute for the partition and ownership of the said land. The case was dismissed as the parties already lost complete ownership of the land while the case was pending before the Court.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner reached the Court and prayed for permanent prohibitory and a mandatory injunction against the Respondents. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents caused nuisance and on the suit land.

The Petitioner claimed that he has a share in the suit land and the Respondents were trying to conduct construction on the most valuable part of the suit land. 

The suit caused over the land was dismissed by the Court. The Court held that the demonstration of the offended party of raising development over the contested land and denying development to the Respondents which was was in control of the Litigant could not be named to be a fair demonstration. Thus, he did not have any evidence to support his prayer for reliefs. 

The Court further held that the parties were co-workers and any party cannot suddenly question the initial settlement as it has lived with neither any consent of others nor with a suit for partition.

The said decision was upheld by Appellate Court. Subsequently, not being satisfied with the Judgement, the Petitioner reached the Court. 

While the present case was pending before the Court, a suit for partition of the suit land was decided. The Decision held that out of Respondent Number 1, 2, 3 and 4, the land was given to Respondent Number 3 and 4. Respondent No. 2 and 3 had no share in the land.

Arguments

The Petitioner prayed for reliefs for restraining the Respondent from furthering the construction on the suit land claiming it to be illegal. The Respondent stated that the construction was not as illegal as the land was jointly owned. Further, there was no prior arrangement regarding the partition and ownership of any part of the land. 

Court’s Observation 

The Court observed that the ownership of the land was settled as Respondents 1 and 2 had no share in the land and thus were not owners. Therefore, any matter raised regarding the suit land and prayers made by the Petitioner for reliefs is no longer valid. 

Court’s Judgement 

Based on the aforementioned facts, the case is no longer valid and is infructuous. Therefore, the case was dismissed as the Respondents did not have any title over the said land at all.  


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -