Ana Rita Rosalia Sulochana Vaz vs Angela Melba da Gama Pinto

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(Bom) 1975

2007(2) ALL MR 611
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
P. V. KAKADE, J.
Ana Rita Rosalia Sulochana Vaz - Appellant.
Vs.
Angela Melba da Gama Pinto & Ors. - Respondent.
Appeal from Order No.1 of 2003 with Civil
Application No.4 of 2003
Decided on 6th December, 2006.
Advocates Appeared
M. B. D'COSTA, Sr. A with J. A. LOBO, for Appellant.
M. S. USGAONKAR, Sr. A. with Ms. P. KAMAT, for Respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 in person-absent.
C. MASCARENHAS, for Respondent Nos.3, 4, & 5 - Absent

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 - Injunction - Grant of - Order of status quo - Appellate Court passed interim orders for maintaining status quo for two weeks - Directed Inventory Court to proceed with inventory - Not to pass final orders on that - Suit ripe for hearing - Interference with order not serve any useful purpose - Modified order of appellate Court directed to be remain in force. - In the course of hearing, it was apparent that no worthwhile purpose would be served in adjudicating the application for temporary injunction, when the suit is ripe for hearing, as it is of the year 2001 and, therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties to expedite the suit for the purpose of final adjudication on merits.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 - Maintenance of status quo - For two weeks - Lower Court’s order modified to the effect that Inventory Court shall proceed with Inventory proceedings and shall not pass any final order - When suit is ripe for hearing, no useful purpose will be served by interfering with order - Modified order of Appellate Court will remain inforce.

JUDGMENT :- Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties, Perused the record, 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa rejecting the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.491/2001/B for temporary injunction with direction that the first defendant shall maintain status quo for 2 months. While the appeal was admitted, this Court modified the lower Court's order to the effect that the Inventory Court shall proceed with the Inventory Proceedings No.214/1997, shall not pass any final orders in the decision of the appeal. Statement of Advocate for respondent No.1, Mr. Usgaonkar, was also recorded to the effect that respondent No.1 shall maintain status quo in respect of the properties in issue.

3. In the course of hearing, it was apparent that no worthwhile purpose would be served in adjudicating the application for temporary injunction, when the suit is ripe for hearing, as it is of the year 200 1 and, therefore, it would be in the interest of both the parties to expedite the suit for the purpose of final adjudication on merits.

4. Hence, the trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing, after giving opportunity to both the sides to lead their evidence and to complete adjudication within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. It is clarified that pending the suit, modified order passed by this Court shall remain in force. With this direction, the appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Consequently, Civil Application No.4 of 2003 also stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Appeal disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document