AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 236 wordsB.S. Verma, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 16-10-1993 and 29-04-1989 passed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contained in annexure Nos. VII to V. to the writ petition.
Sri B.D. Upadhaya, learned Counsel for the Petitioners made a statement at bar that the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC for disobedience of the interim order was moved by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
It is pertinent to mention here that the suit had already been decided on 29-4-1989 and appeal against the order of the trial court was also dismissed on 16-10-1993.
It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the second appeal was dismissed on 11-5-2007.
In view of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sheo Kumar Saxena v. Sahkari Vikas Sangh, Gonda and Ors. AIR 1983 All 180 it is clear that the Petitioner cannot be punished because the interim order had already come to an end.
In view of the verdict of aforementioned judgment of Allahabad High Court and in view of facts that the interim order does not survive, the writ petition has become infructuous.
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
All applications-stands disposed of accordingly.