Back
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Sadruddin – Appellant
Versus
Qutabidin – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 3349/2023 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 100/2023 & CM APPL. 3350/2023 (for stay)
3. Petitioner challenges the order dated 19.01.2023, whereby the learned Trial court has adjourned the matter for hearing the arguments on application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, 1908 for 02.03.2023.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has not granted ad interim injunction, which is causing grave prejudice to him since the construction which is being carried out to the detriment of the petitioners, as alleged by the petitioner/plaintiff in its plaint has not been considered and every day’s delay is causing the illegal construction to carry on unabated.
5. Learned counsel further submits that it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court to take up the matter in all earnest at the earliest and dispose it of in accordance with law.
6. In view of the fact that there is an urgency in this matter, the requirement of issuing notice to the respondents/ defendants is dispensed with.
7. In v
The urgency in the application due to illegal construction influenced the court's decision to direct the Trial Court to take up the application at the earliest and dispose of it expeditiously.
The Court has the authority to restrain further construction and direct authorities to prevent unauthorized construction based on evidence provided.
Urgent disposal of interim applications under relevant civil procedure rules.
Timely hearing of applications in civil proceedings is essential, with courts expected to adhere to deadlines and avoid unnecessary delays.
The proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC are quasi-criminal in nature, and willful disobedience must be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.
The court ruled that the Trial Court improperly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, emphasizing that only the plaint's averments should be considered, not the defendants' defenses.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
