Court No. - 33
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7994 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rinki Rastogi Respondent :- Narendra Kumar Bhasheen And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Pathak,S B Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Neeraj Rai,Prateek Rai
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Sharma, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Rai, for the respondent no.1.
The petitioner had instituted Original Suit No. 585 of 2018 for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. On application 6C, seeking temporary injunction, ex parte injunction was obtained by the petitioner on 17.05.2018. According to the petitioner, there was full compliance of the requirement of Order 39, Rule 3 C.P.C. within the time provided.
However, against the temporary injunction order dated 17.05.2018, the defendant-respondents 1 and 2 filed Misc. Appeal No. 87 of 2018 which has been allowed by impugned order dated 18th September, 2018 and the matter has been remitted back to the trial court to consider and decide the application 6-C after hearing both sides.
Various submissions have been made by rival counsels but it may not be appropriate for this Court to enter into the merits of those submissions in view of the averments made in paragraph 15 of the petition which is to the effect that the respondents had locked the door to the path gaining entry to the premises in dispute and in connection therewith complaint had been made to the S.P., Varanasi as well as D.I.G., Varanasi.
Ordinarily, an ex parte injunction is granted to maintain status quo. It appears that the ex parte injunction was granted not only to maintain status quo but also to restrain other side from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, which has been disputed by the other side. Otherwise also, satisfaction for grant of ex parte temporary injunction has not been carefully recorded by the trial court.
Under the circumstances, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the order dated 18th September, 2018 passed by the appellate court. However, since the application 6-C for temporary injunction is still pending and the parties have notice of the proceedings, it is provided that the trial court shall endeavour to consider and decide the application 6-C expeditiously after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the rival parties. The trial court shall deal with the application without being influenced by any observations made in this order as well as the order passed by the appellate court.
The petition stands disposed off as above.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari