The delay in deciding the application for restoration and the appeal was procedural and showed undue favour to the plaintiffs. The continuation of the interim stay was not in public interest.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for directing the District Judge, Nawanshahar to dismiss the appeal i.e. CMA No.32 of 2019 (Annexure P12) pending before the District Judge, Nawanshahar; vacate the interim relief continuing in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 granted vide order dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure P13) by the Appellate Court and to direct the Appellate Court to dispose of the aforesaid appeal within a period of 04 weeks.

2. While issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court on 17.09.2020:-

"Inter alia contends that the present revision petition is directed against the interim order dated 09.08.2019 (Annexure P-13), whereby the District Judge has granted injunction to the respondents No.1 & 2 restraining them from being declared as willful defaulters and for initiating any coercive action against them. It is submitted that the appeal was directed against the order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure P-11), whereby the Trial Court had dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

It is submitted that the Interim Resolution Professional was appointed on 11.04.2018 (Annexure P-2) and the same was subject matter of challenge in CWP No.9131 of 2018, which was dismissed on 03.05.2018 (Annexure P-4). Vide the said order, it was ordered that the Interim Resolution Professional would not take over the management of the Company till 15.05.2018, so that the statutory appeal could be filed. Thereafter, the SLP of the Company was dismissed on 11.05.2018 (Annexure P-5). However, the interim order was extended by another week.

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 16.10.2019 (Annexure P-6) by upholding the orders dated 11.04.2018 and 19/25.04.2018. It is submitted that CWP No.15685 of 2018 was filed by the brother of respondent No.1, whereby interim order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P-8) was passed and in the meantime the civil suit was also filed on 31.08.2018 (Annexure P-9) for permanent injunction. The writ petition filed by Neeraj Saluja, the brother was transferred to the Apex Court and eventually the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.09.2019 (Annexure P-14).

It is submitted that the civil suit out of which the appeal arose was dismissed in default on 29.11.2019 (Annexure P-15). The said fact was brought to the notice of the District Judge on 07.12.2019 (Annexure P-20), wherein it was held out that the present respondent/plaintiff No.1 had moved an application for restoration of the suit. Resultantly, the interim order dated 09.08.2019 was allowed to continue, though the record of the lower Appellate Court had been summoned.

It is submitted that in such circumstances, the application for restoration was also not acted upon the Trial Court. Thereafter, the lower Appellate Court adjourned the proceedings on 21.12.2019 to 18.01.2020 (Annexure P-22) and vide order dated 29.02.2020 continued the interim order by giving directions that the lower Court shall dispose of the application for restoration of the suit within one and half months.

It is, thus, submitted that the plaintiffs are playing ducks and drakes with the Court proceedings. Notice of motion.

Mr. Anand Chhibber, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Gaurav Mankotia, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 be served through Mr. Salil Sablok, Advocate, who was appearing before the Appellate Court, for the said company, on instructions of the Resolution Professional.

Adjourned to 01.10.2020.

Since, the suit has been filed by respondents No. 1 & 2, service upon rest of the respondents is dispensed with, for the time being."

3. Brief facts of the case are that Neeraj Saluja and SEL Manufacturing Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "respondents/plaintiffs No.1 and 2") filed a civil suit dated 28.08.2018 (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner/defendant No.1"), praying for a decree that the amount of interest subsidy be computed to which plaintiff No.2 is entitled; pass a decree in fa