Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Revision No. 1 of 1985, decided on 15th January, 1985.
---S. 115--Revision petition, maintainability of--Petitioner failed to show any illegality or material irregularity in order passed by trial Court- Revision petition, held, could not succeed merely because respondent was trying to delay decision on petitioner's injunction application by resorting to making application under O. XIX, r. 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908--No allegation of delay, found on part of trial Court--- Revision petition dismissed summarily in circumstances.
Faizanul Haq for Applicant.
Learned counsel has not been able to show me any illegality o material irregularity in passing the impugned order by the learned Civil Judge. His only grievance seems to be that the respondent (defendant) is trying to delay the decision on the applicant's (plaintiff) injunction application by resorting to making an application under Order XIX, rule 2, C . P. C . although there is no allegation of delay on the part of learned Civil Judge. I would, however, observe that the learned Civil Judge, if conveniently possible, may decide the injunction application as soon as possible after the cross-examination of the applicant (plaintiff) and arguments of the parties. With this observation, the Revision Application is dismissed summarily.
Consequently this application does not succeed and is accordingly dismissed.
H . B . T .
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer