Skip to content


Mohd. Iqbal Vs. Kani Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 468 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1983(5)DRJ222
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rule 1
AppellantMohd. Iqbal
RespondentKani Ram
Advocates: Prem Kumar and; M.L. Bhargav, Advs
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - order 39, rules land 2--section 115--ad-interim injunction--scope in revision--lower court not justified in prolonging ad-interim injunction after filing of written statement. - .....the order sheet, it appears that the application along with the suit was put up before the learned trial judge on april 7, 1933. it was probably considered that ex-parte order should not be passed and a notice was issued to the defendant for april 18, 1983. the parties appeared on april 18,1983 and the case was again adjourned for filing of the written statement and reply to may 10, 1983. on may 10, 1983, the written statement and the reply had been filed, but the case was adjourned to july 13, 1983 for arguments on the application, lam told that even on july 13, 1983, no orders on the application under order 39 rules i and 2 have been passed and this was on the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner. however, the petitioner had obtained an injunction order from this court whereby he.....
Judgment:

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) Since only a short point is involved, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to dispose of the Revision Petition. The main grievance of the petitioner in this Revision Petition is that the learned trial court is not taking up the application filed by him under Order 39, Rules I and 2 of the Code. From the Order Sheet, it appears that the application along with the suit was put up before the learned trial judge on April 7, 1933. It was probably considered that ex-parte order should not be passed and a notice was issued to the defendant for April 18, 1983. The parties appeared on April 18,1983 and the case was again adjourned for filing of the written statement and reply to May 10, 1983. On May 10, 1983, the written statement and the reply had been filed, but the case was adjourned to July 13, 1983 for arguments on the application, lam told that even on July 13, 1983, no orders on the application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 have been passed and this was on the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner. However, the petitioner had obtained an injunction order from this court whereby he was not to be ejected from the premises in dispute.

(2) The learned trial Judge may be justified in not passing an ex-parte order, but I do not find any justification in not passing the necessary orders on an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 on the subsequent dates particularly when the reply and the written statement had been filed. In this situation, the order granted by this court on May 26, 1983 staying the eviction of the petitioner will hold gold till August 17, 1983, when the application is said to be listed before the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge will necessarily pass an order on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 on that date. However, in case the learned trial Judge is not available in court on that date, the order dated May 26, 1983 will continue to operate till a proper order is passed on the application by the learned trial Judge. The revision petition is disposed of in these terms. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //