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

2013 Supreme(J&K) 105

JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
Vice Chairman, S.D.A & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
New Drivers and Cleaners Union -Resopndent
CIMA No. 112/2012, IA No. 367/2012
Decided On : 28-02-2013

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. G.J. Bala, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. M. Sultan, Advocate for the Respondent.

The trial court should decide the maintainability of a suit before passing interim orders, and the civil court has the duty to ascertain the suit's maintainability when it is filed before it.

Headnote:INJUNCTION - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The court directed the trial court to consider and dispose of the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the first instance. The court emphasized that the trial court should have decided the application's maintainability before passing interim orders in a suit for mandatory injunction. The court also highlighted that the power given under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the civil court suo-moto. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants challenged the order of the trial court granting an ad interim injunction application and directing them to allow the respondents to avail active parking place. The trial court also directed the police to implement the injunction order.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court could not pass interim orders in a suit for mandatory injunction without affording an opportunity to file objections and without hearing the other side.

Ratio Decidendi:

The trial court should have decided the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the first instance to determine the maintainability of the suit. The court emphasized that the civil court has the duty to ascertain whether the suit is maintainable in law when it is filed before it. Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The trial court was directed to consider and dispose of the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the first instance. The court stated that if the matter survives after the disposal of the application, it can be considered on its merits for passing appropriate orders.

1. CIMA is directed against the order dated 04.06.2012, whereunder, ad interim injunction application has been allowed by the Trial court and appellants have been directed to allow the respondents to avail active parking place for four sumos till disposal of the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Appellants have also challenged order dated 21st July, 2012, whereunder, learned Trial court directed SHO P/S Batamaloo to implement the injunction order.

2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Trial Judge could not pass interim orders in a suit for mandatory injunction without affording opportu#31;nity to file objections and without hearing the otherside.

3. Mr. M. Sultan, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Trial Court was justified in passing the order impugned in the Appeal as the facts and circumstances of the case warranted for issuance of such directions.

4. Since the maintainability of the Suit had come under eclipse, in view of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the learned Trial Court ought to have decided that application in the first instance.

5. In the present Appeal, at this stage, this Court would not consider the merits of the case to determine as to whether in the facts of the case, the learned Trial court could issue the directions and pass orders which are impugned in this Appeal.

6. Since the Court is only considering the impact of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the impugned orders, Court is refraining from considering the case on merits.

7. The moment, the application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11, it was duty of the Court to return finding on that. Even, otherwise, Civil Court is duty bound to ascertain whether the Suit is maintainable in law when same is filed before it. The Civil court cannot mechanically issue notices and orders on presentation of the Plaint. The power given under Order 7 and Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by Civil court suo-moto also.

8. For the above stated reasons, this Appeal is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. The learned Trial court to consider and dispose of the application of the appellants/defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the first instance.

9. Matter if survives after disposal of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be considered on its merits by the trial court for passing of appropriate orders in accordance with law.

10. Till the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is considered and disposed of, status quo as on date be maintained.

11. Disposed of alongwith connected CMP(s).


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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