1989 Supreme(MP) 597

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T.N. Singh, S.K. Dubey, JJ.
State of M.P. – Appellant
Versus
Vasant Bihar Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha – Respondent
M.P. No. 994 of 1989 (G)
Decided On : 18-09-1989

Headnote:(1)Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 39, R. 3 – A and 4 – application for temporary injunction to be disposed of within 30 days – Court has no jurisdiction to protract proceeding.

       (2) Court – has to discharge its duty according to law.

        Short Note

       1. The complaint is at two levels. Firstly, it is contended by Shri P.D. Agrawal, Panel Lawyer that the trial Court has dealt with the matter in a very irresponsible manner. He has contended that a temporary injunction was granted to respondent no. 1 in 1987 and that was continued for two years.

       2. Presiding Officer of the Court of Fourth Civil Judge Class II Shri A.K. Samadhia in our view, has dealt with the matter carelessly and leisurely without realising the effect of the ex – parte temporary injunction and the injury caused thereby to the petitioner, defendant in the Court below. He is supposed to know the statutory provisions and he ought to have dealt with the matter in accordance therewith. As per amended rule 3 – A of order 39, CPC within 30 days, an application for temporary injunction has to be disposed of finally and if that is not possible, the Court has to record reasons for its inability. When parties appear, the Court has to act immediately under rule 4 of order 39, CPC and it has no jurisdiction to protract proceedings further without valid reasons.

       3. Our attention is drawn by Shri R.D. Jain to the fact that the order dated 21.12.1988 passed by the trial Court discloses a different state of affairs. He has submitted that the trial Court had continued the temporary injunction on concession made in that regard by Government Pleader Shri Sushil Sharma. That does not speak good of either the learned Government Pleader and much less of the Court. The Court has to discharge its own duties in accordance with law and nothing stood in the way of disposing of the matter finally by the Court notwithstanding concession of the Government Pleader for status quo to be maintained. What is alarming is that the suit eventually ended in dismissal on the ground of maintainability. In such circumstances, passing an ex – parte temporary injunction and allowing that to continue for about two years is a serious matter of which we take serious notice.

       4. We would like it to be understood by the concerned Court that we have not appreciated that Court's treatment of the matter and we would expect that in such matters, the Court would keep in mind its statutory duty and be alert in discharging that duty in accordance with law. We hope that we would not have any occasion in future to notice such remissness on the part of the Court concerned.

       5. In so far as the Government Pleader's conduct is concerned, we say nothing on that. Because, it is the matter between the counsel and the client. We would like, however, to bring it to the notice of the State Government that it would be within their competence to deal with their counsel in such manner as they would consider fit and proper regarding counsel's conduct noticed hereinabove. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this order to the Secretary to Government, Madhya Pradesh, Law Department, Bhopal, for necessary action. With a copy of the order, shall be sent a copy of the order passed by the trial Court on 21.12.1988 in which concession of Shri Sushil Sharma, is noticed. Petition dismissed as infructuous.