{"id":313386,"date":"2024-02-08T09:00:01","date_gmt":"2024-02-08T03:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=313386"},"modified":"2024-03-04T12:42:35","modified_gmt":"2024-03-04T07:12:35","slug":"notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Suit not barred for want of Notice under S. 326 of U.P. Municipalities Act if it defeats the purpose of Injunction suit; Allahabad HC upholds Civil Judge order"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Allahabad High Court:<\/span> In a petition filed by Nagar Panchayat challenging the order dated 08-11-2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) in a suit, rejecting the application filed by the it under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (\u2018CPC\u2019) as well as the order passed by District Judge, in Civil Revision, dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 08-11-2023, Manish Kumar Nigam, J. has held that no illegality has been committed by the courts below in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> CPC<\/a> filed by Nagar Panchayat on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 326 of the Municipalities Act, 1916, as notice under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916<\/a> is not mandatory if it will defeat the purpose of the injunction suit.<\/p>\n

The respondents instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the Nagar Panchayat from raising constructions and obstructing the right of way of the respondents.<\/p>\n

The Nagar Panchayat contended that the suit is barred by Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916<\/a> (\u2018Act, 1916\u2019) as they have not received any notice as required under the Act, 1916. Further, the land in dispute belongs to Nagar Panchayat and the respondent has other ‘rasta’ to approach the road. Therefore, no suit for injunction is maintainable that too without giving notice to them as mandated under the Act 1916. Thus, the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the application of the Nagar Panchayat under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> C.P.C.<\/a><\/p>\n

The respondent contended that the question whether the suit is barred by Section 326 cannot be considered in an application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> C.P.C.<\/a> and the application of the Nagar Panchayat was rightly rejected by the courts below.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/span> Whether the suit filed by the respondents is barred for want of notice under Section 326 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 2016<\/a> as the respondents has not given any notice under Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916<\/a> and as such the plaint is to be rejected, in view of Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> CPC<\/a> (d).<\/p>\n

Analysis:<\/p>\n

The Court took note of the provisions of Section 326 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916<\/a>, which provides that no suit shall be instituted against a Municipality, or against a member, officer or servant of a Municipality, in respect of an act done in its official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been given.<\/p>\n

Further, it took note of sub-Clause 4 of Section 326, which provides that nothing in this sub-Section shall construe to apply to a suit, wherein the only relief claim is an injunction of which the object would be defeated by giving of notice or the postponement of the commencement of the suit or proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Court reiterated that at a notice has to be given before instituting a suit against the Nagar Palika (Municipality) in view of the provisions of Section 326 of the Act, 1916, unless the case is covered by the exception given in sub-Clause 4 of Section 326.<\/p>\n

After referring to Haji Ahmad Raza<\/span> v. Municipal Board of Allahabad<\/span>, 1952 SCC OnLine All 71<\/a> , the Court said that the exception given in sub-Section 4 has a very restricted meaning. Even in case of injunction, a notice is necessary to be given to the Board or its officer or servant covered by Sub-Section 1. Where the object of the suit would be defeated by giving notice in an injunction suit, such notice need not be given.<\/p>\n

The Court further said that the \u2018rasta\u2019 in dispute is the only ‘rasta’ available to the respondent to approach the road. In case the aforesaid ‘rasta’ is obstructed by raising constructions by the Nagar Panchayat, the purpose of the suit would be defeated. Therefore, the Court held that no illegality has been committed by the courts below in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> CPC<\/a> filed by Nagar Panchayat on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 326 of the Municipalities Act, 1916.<\/p>\n

It added that, the contention of the respondent that the question whether suit is barred by Section Act, 1916 cannot be considered at the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11, is misconceived.<\/p>\n

Further, the Court noted that Order VII Rule 11(d)<\/a> CPC<\/a> provides that the plaint shall be rejected \u201cwhere the suit appears from the statement made in the plaint to be barred by any law\u201d. Thus, it said that to decide whether the suit is barred by law, it is the statement in the plaint will have to be construed. The Court while deciding such an application, must give due regard only to the statements made in the plaint. Whether the suit is barred by any law must be determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in the case.<\/p>\n

It also added that at the time of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> CPC<\/a>, the Court has to look into only the averments made in the plaint. The case set up by the defendant in his written statement or in an application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> CPC<\/a> cannot be looked into.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Court said that the case set up by the Nagar Panchayat can be considered only after framing an issue and considering the evidence led by both the parties at the time of deciding the said issue during trial and not at the stage of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> CPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thus, it opined that the Courts below have rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11<\/a> CPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[Executive Officer Nagar v Stainli Khan, 2024 SCC OnLine All 279<\/a>, Order dated 01-02-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Counsel for Petitioner:<\/span> Advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari<\/p>\n

Counsel for Respondent:<\/span> Advocate Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate Atmaram Nadiwal<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Whether the suit is barred by any law must be determined from the statements in the plaint and it is not open to decide the issue on the basis of any other material including the written statement in the case.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":290504,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[65172,10341,36683,3659,65171],"class_list":["post-313386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-injunction-suit","tag-municipality","tag-nagar-panchayat","tag-notice","tag-s-326-u-p-municipalities-act"],"yoast_head":"\nNotice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit: Allahabad HC | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Allahabad HC while upholding civil judge order, said that notice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act is not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit:\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suit not barred for want of Notice under S. 326 of U.P. Municipalities Act if it defeats the purpose of Injunction suit; Allahabad HC upholds Civil Judge order\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Allahabad HC while upholding civil judge order, said that notice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act is not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit:\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-02-08T03:30:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-03-04T07:12:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Suit not barred for want of Notice under S. 326 of U.P. Municipalities Act if it defeats the purpose of Injunction suit; Allahabad HC upholds Civil Judge order\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Notice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit: Allahabad HC | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-02-08T03:30:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-03-04T07:12:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Allahabad HC while upholding civil judge order, said that notice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act is not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit:\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"allahabad high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suit not barred for want of Notice under S. 326 of U.P. Municipalities Act if it defeats the purpose of Injunction suit; Allahabad HC upholds Civil Judge order\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Notice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit: Allahabad HC | SCC Blog","description":"Allahabad HC while upholding civil judge order, said that notice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act is not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit:","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suit not barred for want of Notice under S. 326 of U.P. Municipalities Act if it defeats the purpose of Injunction suit; Allahabad HC upholds Civil Judge order","og_description":"Allahabad HC while upholding civil judge order, said that notice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act is not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit:","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-02-08T03:30:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-03-04T07:12:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Suit not barred for want of Notice under S. 326 of U.P. Municipalities Act if it defeats the purpose of Injunction suit; Allahabad HC upholds Civil Judge order","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/","name":"Notice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit: Allahabad HC | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2024-02-08T03:30:01+00:00","dateModified":"2024-03-04T07:12:35+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Allahabad HC while upholding civil judge order, said that notice under S. 326 U.P. Municipalities Act is not mandatory, if defeats the purpose of Injunction suit:","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"allahabad high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/08\/notice-under-s-326-of-u-p-municipalities-act-not-mandatory-if-defeats-the-purpose-of-injunction-suit-allahabad-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suit not barred for want of Notice under S. 326 of U.P. Municipalities Act if it defeats the purpose of Injunction suit; Allahabad HC upholds Civil Judge order"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":306223,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/02\/up-revenue-code-plaint-cannot-rejected-suit-injunction-not-seeking-demarcation-plot-boundaries-all-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":313386,"position":0},"title":"[UP Revenue Code] Plaint cannot be rejected in an Injunction suit not seeking demarcation of boundaries: Allahabad HC","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cProceedings under Section 24 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, are summary in nature while an injunction suit filed by the respondent is a regular suit.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"allahabad high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":217032,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/18\/utt-hc-subsequent-issuance-of-notice-by-nagar-panchayat-not-barred-by-res-judicata-as-earlier-appeal-was-allowed-on-technical-ground-and-not-merits\/","url_meta":{"origin":313386,"position":1},"title":"Utt HC | Subsequent issuance of notice by Nagar Panchayat not barred by res judicata as earlier appeal was allowed on technical ground and not merits","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. dismissed the instant writ petition where the petitioner sought mandamus to command respondent not to demolish the construction of his residential house. The disputed facts were that the constructed house of the petitioner was part of Gaon Sabha earlier. Subsequently, the land came under\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":344538,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/28\/city-civil-judge-citing-non-existing-cases-disturbing-probe-ordred-karnataka-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":313386,"position":2},"title":"Karnataka HC terms the act of City Civil Judge citing non-existing cases to back decision as \u2018disturbing\u2019; Directs probe in the matter","author":"Sucheta","date":"March 28, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"While rejecting the defendants\u2019 application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, the Civil Judge cited 2 non-existent Supreme Court rulings to back his decision.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Karnataka-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":315600,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/29\/civil-court-jurisdiction-barred-by-section-85-of-waqf-act-cal-hc-allows-application-under-order-vii-rule-11d-cpc-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":313386,"position":3},"title":"Civil Court lacks jurisdiction over Waqf Property disputes: Calcutta High Court","author":"Ritu","date":"February 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court held that \u201cin order to decide whether the suit is barred by any law, it is the statement in the plaint which will have to be construed.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":293739,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/03\/explained-allahabad-high-court-verdict-on-gyanvapi-mosque-case-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":313386,"position":4},"title":"Explained| Allahabad High Court verdict on Gyanvapi Mosque case","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 3, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"In a suit instituted by the Hindu worshippers to secure their right to darshan and pooja of deities Virajman within the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque Complex, the Allahabad High Court said that merely seeking right to worship Hindu deities does not change the Mosque's character into a Temple.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"allahabad high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/allahabad-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":278912,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/01\/allahabad-high-court-reiterates-until-section-5-application-is-allowed-neither-appeal-nor-revision-can-be-held-competent-directs-dj-to-appear-for-committing-impropriety-in-dis\/","url_meta":{"origin":313386,"position":5},"title":"Allahabad High Court holds revision order defective for admitting without condoning the delay","author":"Editor","date":"December 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court, not doubting the bona fides of the District Judge, maintained the legal position of Section 5 stating that revision order was a defective one without condoning the delay. There may be instances where the interest of justice may demand Court's interference to avoid frustration of proceedings due to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Allahabad High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image31.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313386","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=313386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/313386\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/290504"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=313386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=313386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=313386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}