The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a temporary injunction application without a counter claim or cross suit, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements.

Judgment

Date Of Judgment 22/01/2024

1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellants-non-applicants-plaintiffs(for short ‘the non-applicants’) under Section 43 Rule(1) CPC against the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan 2nd in T.I. Application No.59/2022 titled as Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. Chief Engineer, Circle Jaipur City & Ors., whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the respondent No.1-applicant (for short ‘the applicant’) has been partly allowed and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been directed to decide the applicant’s application regarding electricity connection and pass an order in this regard expeditiously.

2. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that the non- applicants had filed a suit on behalf of Mandir Shree Swaminarayana Dispensary for declaring the Power of Attorney dated 27.11.2012 and Sale Deed dated 19.05.2017 as null and void and also sought the relief of recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the applicant and others.

3. Learned counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the applicant filed an application for temporary injunction and sought relief against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for providing her electricity connection and also prayed not to create hurdle in the procedure of giving electricity connection. Learned counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the non-applicants filed reply to the temporary injunction application wherein it was mentioned that the temporary injunction application is not maintainable because the applicant, who is the defendant No.1, in the original suit had not filed any counter claim or cross suit and also not impleaded Mandir Shree Swaminarayana Dispensary as party/non- applicant in the application. So, the temporary injunction be dismissed on account of its non-maintainability. Learned counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the applicant No.1 had right to file a cross-suit or counter claim for procuring relief as mentioned in the temporary injunction application but the trial court wrongly entertained the temporary injunction application and passed the order against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to decide the applicant’s application for electricity connection at the earliest. Learned counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction. So, the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the trial court be set-aside.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicants and submitted that the trial court has rightly partly allowed the temporary injunction application filed by her because there is no necessity to file a counter claim or cross suit regarding relief as sought by her. As per Section 94 of CPC, the applicant is entitled to get the relief as granted in the temporary injunction application. So, the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the trial court is according to Law. So, the appeal filed by the non-applicants be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the High Court Of Karnataka in the case of Writ Petition Nos.58906/2013 and 16412/2014 ( Shankunthalamma Vs. Kanthamma ) decided on 05.09.2014.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the non- applicants.

7. It is an admitted position that the suit was filed by the non- applicants on behalf of Mandir Shri Swaminarayana Dispensary. The applicant had not come in her independent capacity. The applicant filed an application for temporary injunction application in which she had not impleaded Mandir Shri Swaminarayana as a party-non applicant. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not party in the said suit. It is also an admitted position that the applicant had not filed the cross suit or counter claim. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has exceeded its jurisdic