Back
2015 Supreme(All) 2957
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Krishna Murari, Raghvendra Kumar, JJ.
Anand Kumar And Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Kishan Raizadey And Anr. - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 2601 of 2015
Decided On : 27-10-2015
For the Petitioner: Preetpal Singh.
For the Respondent: Siddharth Verma.
Compliance with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. is crucial in temporary injunction applications.
Headnote:
Temporary Injunction - Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. - The court directed the trial court to decide the temporary injunction application on its merits, emphasizing the importance of complying with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction and applied for temporary injunction. The trial court issued an ex-parte temporary injunction, but the defendants refused to accept the notices. The trial court found that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. and vacated the ex-parte temporary injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the trial court to decide the temporary injunction application on its merits, considering the appearance of the defendant and the filing of written statement and objection to the temporary application.
Issues: Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C., Decision on Temporary Injunction Application
Ratio Decidendi: Importance of complying with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. in temporary injunction applications.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction to the trial court to decide the temporary injunction application on its merits expeditiously.
Heard Shri Preetam Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants and Shri Siddharth Verma who has accepted the notice on behalf of the defendants/respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and decree dated 18.8.2015 passed by the trial court vacating the ex-party temporary injunction order under order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C.
3. The facts giving rise to this case are that the plaintiffs/appellants filed original suit for permanent injunction and an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The trial court vide order dated 4.7.2015 while issuing the notices to the defendants/respondents passed ex-party temporary injunction order and required them to take steps as provided under order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. The plaintiffs/appellants have taken steps. But the service was returned with an endorsement of refusal. Subsequently, the respondent no. 1 put in appearance and when the envelope in which the notices were sent to the respondent no. 1 was opened, it was found that it did not contain the entire papers in as much as the copy of the sale deed was also not sent alongwith other documents. The finding of trial court is that the plaintiffs/appellants have failed to comply with the provisions of order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. and vacated the ex-party temporary injunction.
4. Be that as it may, the temporary injunction application is still pending consideration before the trial court. The defendant/respondent no.1 has already put in appearance. Shri Siddharth Verma appearing on behalf of the defendants/respondents states that written statement and objection to the temporary application has also been filed. The report of Amin is also on record.
5. In such circumstances, we are of considered view that the interest of justice would be served if the trial court is directed to decide the temporary injunction application itself on merits.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal stands disposed of with the direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Budaun to proceed to decide the application for temporary injunction pending before him in original suit no. 240 of 2015 in accordance with law by means of reasoned and speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
