Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Arun Bhansali, J.
Bhagwat singh - Appellant
Versus
Basanti Manihar & ors. - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5192 of 2011
Decided On : 29-01-2013
Order 39 - Civil Procedure Code - The court rejected the application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code because the affected party, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, was not impleaded in the suit or the temporary injunction application.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's application for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court as the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, the affected party, was not impleaded in the suit or the temporary injunction application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the application was just and proper as the affected party was not before the court. The appellant was advised to file a fresh application after seeking amendment of the plaint and impleadment of the bank as a party to the suit.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code due to the absence of the affected party in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the affected party, the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, was not impleaded in the suit or the temporary injunction application, leading to the rejection of the application.
Final Decision: The miscellaneous appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was advised to file a fresh application after the pending application seeking amendment of the plaint and impleadment of the bank as a party to the suit is decided by the trial court.
Arun Bhansali, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code filed by the appellant has been rejected by the learned trial court essentially on account of the fact that the order if any passed by the said Court would affect the Bank - State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, which has not been impleaded as a party either to the suit or to the temporary injunction application.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that already an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code is pending consideration before the learned trial court seeking amendment of the plaint and impleadment of the said Bank as party to the suit.
4. The order impugned passed by the learned trial court appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case where the affected party of the application i.e. the Bank is not before the Court. Therefore, the order does not call for any interference.
5. However, the appellant would be free to move a fresh application seeking injunction after application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code is decided by the learned trial court.
With these observations, this misc. appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
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
