Sri Rakesh Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party and file vakalatnama, the same is taken on record.
Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted two week's time to file objection, if any, in the matter in question.
List in the week commencing 8.2.2010.
Sri G.S.L. Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist for the purposes of interim relief submits that this Court while deciding Civil Revision No.98 of 2009 by order dated 5.11.2009 has given the following directions:-
"As matter is said of urgent nature, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151 C.P.C., also pending, the trial court will decide both these disputes expeditiously, if possible, within one month from the date when certified copy of this order/judgement is placed before the court. No unnecessary adjournment shall be allowed to either party.
Certified copy of this order be supplied to parties counsel within three days on payment of usual charges."
He further submits that the said order (5.11.2009) has not been challenge by the respondent as such the same has attained finality in the eyes of law. As the respondent during the pendency 2 of application for temporary injunction are proceedings to dispose of some of the plots in question in respect to which the controversy is involved in the suit, which is filed by the revisionist. Keeping in view the said facts an application under Section 151 C.P.C. was moved by the revisionist before the court below for grant of injunction, however the court below without any reasonable justification and reason rejected the said application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. By meas of order dated 5.1.2010 observing therein that the matter in respect to grant of temporary injunction will be decided at letter stage, rejected the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. will not be a legal impediment while deciding the application for temporary injunction.
In view of said factual backgrounds Sr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said action on the part of the court below besides being arbitrary in nature and rendered the Suit No.660/09, M/s Dubey Lands & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rishi Vashisth Avas Samiti Ltd. filed by the revisionist is also in contravention to the direction issued by this Court on 5.11.2009 in Civil Revision No.98 of 2009, Rishi Vashistha Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs. M/s Dubey Lands and Fanance Ltd.
In view of the above said facts, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will sub-serve, if the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect to the property in question, which is subject matter of the Regular Suit No.660/09, M/s Dubey Lands & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rishi Vashisth Avas Samiti Ltd.
Till the next date of listing, parties are directed to maintain status quo as exists today.
Order Date :- 18.1.2010 Pramod