IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Mandeep Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
Nagar Palika Parishad and Another – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 866 of 2025
Decided On : 27-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing of petitioners and respondents. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding the appropriateness of appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. set aside of the district judge's order. (Para 5) |
| 4. direction for trial court to expedite decision. (Para 6 , 7) |
1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar learned senior Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the suit filed for permanent injunction, an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved in which the Court below, after recording reasons, as provided in proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX C.P.C. had issued notice to the defendants and till the next date of listing had passed the order of status quo. Aggrieved by the order granting ad interim injunction, a misc. appeal has been preferred by the contesting defendant-respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the order granting ad interim injunction, no misc. appeal lies under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) C.P.C. and the only remedy was to either file stay vacation application or to have approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Gurmej Singh and others vs. Ranjit Kaur and others 2020 (12) ADJ 561 .
4. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents very fairly concedes the fact that as the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. is still pending consideration before the trial Court and it has not been decided, no misc. appeal would lie under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) C.P.C.
5. In view of the said fact, the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by District Judge, Rampur, admitting misc. appeal No.1 of 2025, is hereby set aside. Misc. appeal No.1 of 2025 also stands dismissed forthwith as no misc. appeal lies against an ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court as it is not covered under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) C.P.C. The writ petition stands allowed.
6. As the application for grant of temporary injunction is still pending consideration before the trial Court and has not been decided, the District Judge, Rampur is hereby requested to return the file which has been summoned from the trial Court and the trial Court to proceed with the matter and make every effort to decide the temporary injunction application, which is pending consideration, after hearing both the affected parties within next two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
7. In case any application is moved by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking protection of ad interim injunction, the same shall also be considered by the trial Court within 48 hours and the necessary orders shall be passed thereafter.
An appeal against an ad interim injunction does not lie under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC; such issues must be addressed through appropriate proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The court mandated expedited resolution of an appeal concerning property title and injunction while addressing procedural delays.
The appellate court found the Trial Court's vacation of the interim injunction unjustified, emphasizing the importance of maintaining status quo in ongoing litigation.
An appeal against an order declining a temporary injunction is maintainable if the order is made after hearing both parties, as per the CPC.
The court emphasized the necessity of full disclosure when seeking injunctive relief within property disputes.
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.