Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ
Parvinder Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Chet Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia , CJ.
The present Revision Petition is directed by the applicant-petitioner against order dated 01.07.2015, passed by the Additional District Judge (II), Shimla, whereby dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 5, was affirmed, Vide order dated 10.12.2013, an application under Order 39, Rule 2- A of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the applicant-petitioner was dismissed.
2. Order dated 10.12.2013 is stated to be passed in violation of the injunction order dated 05.05.2008. The said order had been challenged firstly before the Additional District Judge (II), Shimla by the applicant- petitioner by filing an appeal, which was dismissed on 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-6), which is subject matter of challenge in this petition, also.
3. Initially, the Revision Petition was directed to be heard in due course way back on 23.08.2016.
4. When the matter came up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner- plaintiff's suit has been dismissed and thereafter the First Regular Appeal was also dismissed, but the matter is pending in Regular Second Appeal before this Court.
5. In such circumstances, this Court was o
Once a suit is dismissed, any interim order merges into the final order, rendering applications under Order 39 Rule 2-A non-maintainable.
An appeal against an interim order is not maintainable; the appellant must file an application for vacation of the order.
Stay of trial does not prevent continuation of supplemental proceedings, including injunction applications, according to the principles established in precedents.
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has the power to render “substantial justice” between the parties. Due to the “closing” of the application, the plaintiff's rights cannot be defeated.
appellant has not filed any objection/application before the Trial Court under Rule 4 of Order 39 C.P.C. to vacate the ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a final order....
The dismissal of the original suit nullifies any interim orders, and the appellate court's decision to set aside the trial court's civil imprisonment directive was correct.
An interim injunction does not revive automatically upon restoration of a suit after dismissal for default; a new order is required for its enforcement.
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
