ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar, J.
Rajendra Prasad & Another - Appellant
Versus
Civil Judge (J.D.) South Room No. 24 Sultanpur & Others - Respondent
Misc. Single No. - 7366 of 2014
Decided On : 26-11-2014
Trivial Controversy - Direction to Decide Application Expeditiously - The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Civil Judge to consider and decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed in the pending suit expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a regular suit for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction. They moved an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, which was not decided due to the respondents' lingering attitude.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the controversy was trivial and decided to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage. It issued a direction to the Civil Judge to decide the pending matter expeditiously.
Issues: Delay in deciding the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The interest of justice will be served by issuing a direction to the Civil Judge to decide the application expeditiously.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Civil Judge to consider and decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed in the pending suit expeditiously.
Anil Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel and perused the record.
2. As the controversy involved in the present case is trivial in nature so with the consent of learned counsels for the parties present today, the present writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage. Accordingly, notice to O.P.Nos. 2 to 4 are dispensed with.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a regular suit for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 1010/2013 in which he has moved and application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, he further submits that the same is not decided due to lingering attitude adopted by the respondents, so a direction may be given to opposite party No. 1 to decide the same expeditiously.
4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the interest of justice will sub-serve if a direction is issued to O.P. No. 1/Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), South, Room No. 24, Sultanpur to decide the matter pending at his end at an early date.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to O.P. No. 1/Civil Judge, (Jr. Div.), South, Room No. 24, Sultanpur to consider and decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC filed in Regular Suit No. 1010/2013 pending at his end, expeditiously, say, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of this order, after hearing the counsel for the parties concerned in accordance with law.
6. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioners on merit.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.