The main legal point established is that the lower court must provide sufficient reasons for dismissing an application and vacating an interim injunction, and applications filed by both parties must be considered separately.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral) - Mr. Sanjeev Suri, learned counsel for the respondent states that he does not intend to file reply to the petition and has no objection in case petition is heard and decided on the basis of material available on record.

2. Question which needs to be determined and decided by this Court in the instant proceedings is whether the Court below while disposing of the application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 75, 94 & 151 CPC could proceed to vacate the ex-parte ad interim injunction already granted in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of material adduced before it at the time of filing civil suit?

3. For having birds eye view, necessary facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant (respondent herein) for restraining him from raising any construction over the suit land as described in head note of the plaint. Civil suit referred herein above came to be filed on the averments that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by co-owners including parties to the suit and the same has not been partitioned by metes and bounds and, as such, the defendant cannot be allowed to raise construction on specific and valuable portion of suit land. Alongwith the aforesaid suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC (Annexure P-l). Learned Civil Judge, Court No.II, Una vide order dated 20.03.2017 after having perused the material made available on record by the plaintiff, directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and construction over suit land till further orders. Vide aforesaid order, Court also directed that compliance of order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made forthwith and thereafter show cause notice be issued to the respondent for 03.04.2017.

4. Since despite issuance of aforesaid status quo order respondent failed to stop construction on the suit land, plaintiff approached the learned Court below by way of application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Sections 75, 94 & 151 CPC, prayingtherein to provide police assistance for enforcement of order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the Court below directing the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and construction over suit land. In the aforesaid application plaintiff while claiming that despite having received a copy of order dated 20.03.2017, respondent is raising construction over the suit land, prayed that he be provided police assistance.

5. Material available on record reveals that on the aforesaid application notice came to be issued to the respondent, who by way of reply claimed before the Court below that plaintiff has obtained interim stay by concealing material facts and no construction is being raised by him on the suit land in violation of order passed by the Court. Respondent further claimed that he had filed caveat petition under Section 148-A CPC on 16.3.2017, which was registered as 09/17 dated 16.3.2017 at Server Room and notice of the same was also issued to the plaintiff and, as such, no interim order dated 20.3.2017 could be passed by the Court below without hearing him. The learned Court below vide order dated 25.3.2017, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 75, 94 and 151 CPC on the ground that he concealed the material facts from the Court at the time of passing of order on 20.3.2017. In view of the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court in theinstant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order dated 25.03.2017.

6. Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the plaintiff while referring to the provisions contained in application under Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 75, 94 and 151 CPC strenuously argued that the Court below ought not to have passed impugned order dated 25.03.2017 because by way of aforesaid application plaintiff had sought police assistance f