Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1166 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shankar Dutt Shukla And Another Respondent :- Civil Judge And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record.
As the controversy involved in the present case is trivial in nature, so the present writ petition is finally heard and decided at the admission stage.
Accordingly, notices to opposite parties are dispensed with.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2/Paras Nath Shukla-plaintiff filed as suit (Regular Suit No. 443 of 2017, Paras Nath Shukla Vs. Shankar Dutt Shukla and others) in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kaushambi for permanent injunction in which an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. has been moved and the trial court has granted temporary injunction, thereafter the defendant-petitioner moved an application for vacation of the temporary injcution granted by the trial court registered as Application No. 6-C dated 19.07.2017.
However, due to one and other pretext without any fault on the part of the petitioners the said application could not be decided till date.
He further prays for court below may be directed to decide the application for vacation of the temporary injunction granted by the trial court registered as Application No. 6-C dated 19.07.2017 within stipulated time as fixed by this Cour.
Thus, after hearing learned counsel for petitioner and going through the record as well as keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the court below i.e. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kaushambi to decide the application for vacation of the temporary injcution granted by the trial court registered as Application No. 6-C dated 19.07.2017 expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order after hearing the parties concerned on merit.
It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.
Order Date :- 21.2.2019 Ravi/-