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

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1742

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Chandra Kumar Songara, J.
Smt. Gomti Devi Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Agrawal & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 2428/2021
Decided On : 06-04-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ankur Rastogi, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Interim orders issued by civil courts, including ex-parte ad-interim injunctions, are appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., and aggrieved parties must pursue the appropriate appellate remedies rather than filing writ petitions.

Headnote:

[INJUNCTION] - [TEMPORARY INJUNCTION] - The court addressed the legality of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order that prevented the sale and alteration of property pending a partition suit. It emphasized that such interim orders are appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. and clarified that the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the appellate court or the issuing court, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order that prohibited the defendants from selling or altering the property in question during the pendency of a partition suit initiated by the respondent-plaintiff.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the injunction order was issued in accordance with the ongoing suit and that the application for a temporary injunction was still pending adjudication. The court noted the established legal principle that interim orders are appealable.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order was maintainable given the existing legal framework for appealing such orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that any interim order, including an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, is subject to appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., and thus, the appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to seek relief through the appellate process rather than through a writ petition.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

ORDER

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.09, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Temporary Injunction Application No.85/2019 titling as Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt Gomti Devi Agarwal, whereby defendants-respondents were directed not to sell the property in favour of the third party and not to alter the actual position of the property, in question.

2. Facts of the present case in nut-shell are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for partition and declaration. The learned trial Court had passed impugned ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 03.12.2019, by which it was directed for all the defendants-respondents, that the property, in question could not be sold out in favour of third party as well as the actual position of the property, in question would not be altered.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the material made available on record.

4. The suit is pending before the learned trial Court in which the trial Court passed impugned ex-parte ad-interim injunction order. The application filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is still pending before the learned trial Court for final adjudication.

5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Challappan & Others, reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3032, observed that any interim order passed by a Civil Court is appeal able in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. A party aggrieved with an ad-interim injunction order can either move the Appellate Court or approach the same Court, which has passed the same by way of an application under Order 39 Rule 3-A C.P.C.

6. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

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