Back
2015 Supreme(All) 2049
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Sri Jan Kalyan Samiti Kakara Dubawal, Alld. - Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar Yadav And 3 Others - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 2920 of 2015
Decided On : 05-06-2015
For the Petitioner: Randhir Jain.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining strict status quo in a suit for injunction and the directive for the trial court to hear the application on a day-to-day basis and pass the order within a specified time frame.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order XXXIX, Rule 1 - Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) - AIR 1989 Alld 157, AIR 2012 SC 437, 1987 (2) AWC 989 All, AIR 2009 SC 2882 - The court discussed the recall of an injunction order and the alternative remedies available to the petitioner. The court also considered the relevance of various judgments in the context of the suit. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining strict status quo in a suit for injunction, as laid down in the judgment in the case of Ram Kalap Vs. IV Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur and another, reported in AIR 1989 Alld 157.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration as the owner of a property and a permanent injunction against the defendants. An interim injunction was granted, but later recalled on the application of the defendants. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recall application was allowed ex parte and with great haste, without sufficient consideration of the irreparable injury claimed by the defendants. The court directed the trial court to consider and dispose of the injunction application within a specified time frame, maintaining strict status quo over the property.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the writ petition, the alternative remedies available to the petitioner, and the propriety of the recall of the injunction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of maintaining strict status quo in a suit for injunction and directed the trial court to hear the application on a day-to-day basis and pass the order within a specified time frame.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to consider and dispose of the injunction application within a specified time frame, maintaining strict status quo over the property.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Heard Sri Randhir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, who has filed his appearance on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, through their power of attorney-holder, respondent no. 5.
2. A short counter affidavit of the power of attorney-holder of respondents 3 and 4 has been filed, as also supplementary affidavits of their counsel in the court below.
3. The writ petition is directed against an order dated 20.5.2015 passed in Suit No. 184 of 2005. By this order, an injunction granted by the trial court, directing the parties to maintain status quo, has been recalled on an application of respondents 3 to 5 herein.
4. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge (SD), Allahabad, for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit. A further relief for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the plaintiffs' peaceful possession, was sought. It was also prayed that the defendants be restrained from damaging the property and from alienating the same. The suit was filed on 11.2.2015, along with an application for ad interim injunction.
5. It appears that notices were issued to the defendants in the suit. Thereafter, by order dated 5.5.2015 the application for interim injunction was allowed, with the direction that the parties maintain status quo as regards the property in question. This order was passed after hearing the plaintiff and defendant-respondent no. 2. This order further records that service of the notices upon defendants 3 and 4 was held to be sufficient, vide order dated 6.4.2014. However, none appeared on their behalf on the said date, that is, 5.5.2015.
6. It appears that on 18.5.2015, an application was filed on behalf of defendants 3 and 4, through the power of attorney-holder, seeking recall of the the interim injunction, on the ground that it was ex parte against them, i.e. the defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. This application appears to have been filed along with an application for fixing an early date in the matter. It further appears that on this application, dated 18.5.2015, the Court fixed the matter for 20.5.2015, with a further direction that notice of the application be served upon counsel for the plaintiff by a special messenger. The notice through the special messenger is alleged to have been served on the counsel for the plaintiff on 19.5.2015, at about 2: 15 pm. Counsel for the plaintiff had made an endorsement, while receiving the notice, that the next date fixed in the matter was 28.7.2015, and since he did not have the phone number of the plaintiff, there was not enough time to inform him of the date fixed and, therefore, it was prayed that notice be sent to the plaintiff.
7. The matter was thereafter taken up on 20.5.2015, and by an ex parte order the interim injunction granted on 5.5.2015 was vacated, and it was directed that the interim injunction application be considered on the next date fixed, namely 28.7.2015.
8. A perusal of this order indicates that it has been passed on the ground that although the Court, vide order dated 6.4.2015, had held the service of the notice upon defendants 3 and 4 to be sufficient, as the notices meant for them were accepted by their servant. It was alleged in the recall application of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 that no such service was effected and that no notice was served upon them. It has further been recorded that the recall application had been filed, stating that the defendants 3 and 4 would suffer irreparable injury in case the injunction order passed against them is not recalled.
9. There is nothing in the order to indicate as to what irreparable injury was being caused to the defendants by the order of status quo granted by the Court on 5.5.2015.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has submitted that the order of status quo was rightly granted on 5.5.2015, but the same has been recalled on the ground t
