Petitioner Counsel :- Anupam Kulshreshtha Respondent Counsel :- Anil Jaiswal Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohit Singh, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being finally disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
Plaintiff-petitioner, claiming to be a trustee and treasurer of Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, which is stated to be a registered trust running medical college and other educational institutions, filed a suit claiming decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant-respondents not to interfere and obstruct him in his status and working as trustee and treasurer of the trust. An application for temporary injunction was also moved. Trial court vide order dated 22.05.2010 issued notices on the temporary injunction fixing 05.06.2010 for disposal of the same. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that ignoring the averments and the material on record, trial court has wrongly and illegally did not grant ex parte temporary injunction and only issued notices. It has further been submitted that in view of the provisions of the trust deed, the accounts were to be operated under the joint signatures of the President or one of the trusteee and the treasurer, but the President started issuing cheques under his own signature and when this was objected to by the plaintiff- petitioner and complaint was lodged with the Bank, a notice was published in news paper on 08.11.2009 that he has been discharged of his duties as Treasurer in the meeting dated 22.07.2009. It has also been pointed out that taking advantage of the fact that no temporary injunction has been granted, the respondents are withdrawing huge sum from the bank accounts. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the trial court has issued notices and the defendant-respondents are yet to file objection and since the case has been fixed for disposal of the temporary injunction application on 05.06.2010, there is no reason or occasion for this Court to interfere in the order.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to the trial court to decide the temporary injunction application on the date fixed, i.e., on 05th June, 2010 itself.
Learned counsel for the respondent has given an undertaking before this Court that he shall not seek any adjournment. However, if for any unforeseen circumstances, the court below is not able to decide the temporary injunction application on the date fixed, then it shall only grant short adjournment and shall positively decide the same before the civil courts are closed for summer vacation.
Considering the facts and circumstances, till the disposal of the temporary injunction application, as directed aforesaid, defendant- respondents shall operate the bank accounts for withdrawal of money only for carrying out day to day affairs of the trust and not for any other purpose.
However, it is being made clear that trial court shall decide the temporary injunction application on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 28.05.2010 VKS/ WP 211/10