Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3643 of 2021 Petitioner :- Yashwant Singh Respondent :- Dhuruv Pratap Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh,P.H. Vashishtha Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Sahai,Shahnawaz Akhtar
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the opposite party.
By means of this petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Badaun in O.S. No. 183 of 2020 directing that application for temporary injunction filed in the suit bearing paper no. 5-C shall be heard as there was a direction of the High Court to decide the 5-C application within period of two months, however, the Court has directed the plaintiff to file objection to paper no. 53-C, which is an application filed under Order VII Rule of 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that suit filed by present plaintiff respondent itself is not maintainable and the plaint deserves to be rejected for the reason that defendant being a company registered under the Companies Ac, so any dispute in relation thereto is cognizable by the Tribunal constituted for the said purpose under the Companies Act, 2013. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff who was erstwhile director of the company, has sought a relief that he could not be held responsible for any activity at the end of the company after he tendered his resignation on 25.09.2017 and that company be restrained from taking any coercive measure against him in respect of recovery of amount of Rs. 50,000/-. So virtually it is argued to be a case relating to and communicated with a company registered under the Companies Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit by presenting plaint on 24.08.2020 in the trial court and immediately rushed to the High Court, thereafter to get a direction for disposal of application for temporary injunction. Since High Court has simply directed for disposal and did not apply mind to the merit of the claim set up by the plaintiff and maintainability of the suit, the trial court was not justified in deferring the hearing of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC only on the ground that hearing of 5-C application had been expedited.
Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent that application for temporary injunction can be heard and merely because application under order VII Rule 11 has been filed questioning the maintainability of the suit, it is not necessary always to defer hearing of the temporary injunction application to hear an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure first.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case I find that plaint has been filed by an erstwhile Director the Company questioning authority of the company to question him and hence injunction with further relief that company be restrained from taking coercive measure against him, and so it would be in the interest of justice that application filed under Order VII Rule 11 by the defendant respondent is also heard alongwith application for temporary injunction.
Learned counsel for the parties agree that a direction can be issued to the court below to decide the both applications at the same time and they have no objection to the same.
In view of above, this petition is disposed of with direction to opposite party to file objection whatever within a period of two weeks from today to the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC likewise, the petitioner may file objection to the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure within same period and court below shall hear and decide both the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as well as application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC within next 15 days. Needless to add that parties shall be given proper opportunity of hearing before finally deciding the applications as directed hereinabove.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Sanjeev