JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Amar Bhatt appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Advocate Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mrs.Pahwa waives of notice of Rule for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the present petition is taken for final hearing.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the learned Judge, Court No.25, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad dated 30.10.2021 below Exh. 70 in Civil Suit No.1208 of 2013. Vide the said impugned order, the learned City Civil Court has directed that application preferred by the present petitioner herein under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred to as “the Code”) shall be heard later in point of time than an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code preferred by the applicant – petitioner herein himself.

4. Facts, shorn off unnecessary details, are stated herein below:-

4.1. It appears that the petitioner herein is the original plaintiff, whereas the respondents herein are the original defendants. The plaintiff – petitioner herein having filed a Summary Suit for recovery of certain amount and whereas vide an application Exh.6-7, notice of motion for interim injunction had also been preferred. It appears that vide an order dated 9.5.2013, the Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad had granted ad-interim relief ex parte injunction in terms of paragraph 9(B) till the returnable date. Paragraph 9(B) reads as thus:-

“9(B) The defendants and their agents be restrained by way of a temporary injunction of this Hon’ble Court during the pendency of this Suit from selling, alienating, transferring, mortgaging or in any manner encumbering the suit property described in the Schedule hereto.”

It would also be pertinent to mention that a Schedule referred to at prayer 9(b) was also attached with the application for interim injunction.

4.2. It appears that the respondents had appeared on the next date i.e. on 27.5.2013 and whereas the respondents had applied for adjournments. It also appears that the respondents had filed their reply on 10.7.2013 i.e. much after the period of 30 days under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code for deciding an application for interim injunction. It appears that from the year 2013 till the year 2019, while certain events had taken place, in the nature of the civil suit being transferred to the Commercial Court and later on being retransferred back and whereas in the considered opinion of this Court, such aspects are not relevant for the present purpose and, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate not to delve into the same.

4.3. It appears that vide sale deed dated 28.2.2019, a property in the Schedule of Properties mentioned in the Suit had been sold and whereas according to the respondents, the said property had been sold by the HUF of which the respondents were Kartas. Be that as it may, the plaintiff, upon coming to know about the fact of the respondents having sold the property, had preferred an application Exh. 59 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code inter alia claiming breach of the order of the learned City Civil Court and for appropriate action with regard to the same. It also appears that the learned City Civil Court had issued a show-cause notice to the respondents and whereas the respondents had filed a reply to Exh. 59 and a rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner. Later on, it appears that the respondents filed an application Exh.70 praying that the application Exh.6 and 7 i.e. notice of motion under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code be heard first or rather be heard prior to the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code. Learned City Civil Court vide impugned order dated 30.10.2021 had accepted the application below Exh.70 and had directed that application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code should be heard prio