SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Raj) 1369

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
Chief General Manager State Bank of India and others - Appellant
Versus
Brij Mohan Shukla - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 955/99.
Decided On : 8-09-1999

Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.S. Hasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Suresh Pareek, Advocate.

No interim relief deciding the main controversy of the suit can be granted while adjudicating upon the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:

Injunction - Civil Procedure Code - The court held that no interim relief which ultimately decides the main controversy of the suit can be granted while adjudicating upon the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. The lower courts committed an error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders, and failure of justice would be occasioned if the said orders are allowed to stand.

Fact of the Case:

The defendant-petitioners sought to quash the orders allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code and issuing temporary injunction directing the defendants to sanction a loan to the plaintiff.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lower courts committed an error of jurisdiction in granting the interim relief, which ultimately decided the main controversy of the suit.

Issues: The main issue was whether the lower courts erred in granting the interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no interim relief deciding the main controversy of the suit can be granted while adjudicating upon the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code.

Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned orders of the lower courts were set aside. The trial court was directed to adjudicate upon the civil suit pending before it within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

JUDGMENT

1. - The defendant-petitioners seek to quash the orders dated April 27, 1998 and June 2, 1999 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Alwar and Additional district Judge No. 1 Alwar, allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code and issued temporary injunction in the mandatory form directing the defendants petitioners to sanction the loan in the sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the plaintiff respondent.

2. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record.

3. Admittedly, the plaintiff respondent has sought some relief in the plaint which has been asked for by him in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. By allowing the interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code the learned trial court has virtually decreed the main suit and the learned appellate court has also not considered this aspect. In my considered opinion it was incumbent upon the courts below to property examine the pleadings before adjudicating upon the interim applications. No interim relief which ultimately decides the main controversy of the suit can be granted while adjudicating upon the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff respondent in the main suit has sought direction against the defendants petitioners to sanction him loan in the sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- and the same relief has been granted by the learned trial court in the order dated April 27, 1998. The learned appellate court has also confirmed the said order with certain modification. Both the courts below in my considered opinion have committed error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders and if the said orders are allowed to stand failure of justice would be occasioned.

4. Resultantly, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders of the learned courts below stand set-aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case the trial court is directed to adjudicated upon the civil suit pending before it within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs.Petition allowed.

*******


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top