CMA/4779/2015 of ASHISH BANSAL Vs KISHAN LAL AND OTHRES on 18 December 2015

JUDGMENT

1 .The present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by theAdditional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in T.I. ApplicationNo.86/ 2015, whereby the trial court has refused to grant ad-interim injunction as prayed for by the appellant-plaintiff,pending the temporary injunction application.

2 .It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. ShivCharan Gupta for the appellant that the observations made bythe trial court with regard to the right of the appellant in the suitproperties are absolutely illegal in view of the settled legalposition. According to him, the respondents are likely to disposeof the suit properties, and they are not injuncted, it would resultinto the multiplicity of the proceedings. He has relied upon thedecision of the Supreme Court in case of Kir pal Kau r vs. Jit en derPal Sin gh & Or s., ( 2 0 1 5) 9 SCC 3 5 6 ,in support of hissubmissions.

3 .Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the appellant and to the impugned order passed bythe trial court, it appears that the appellant-plaintiff has filed thesuit seeking partition of the properties in question and has alsofiled the application seeking temporary injunction, pending thesuit. It further appears that the appellant had also prayed for ad-interim injunction pending the temporary injunction applicationwhich has been dismissed by the trial court. It further appearsthat the respondents-defendants have not filed any reply to thetemporary injunction application nor written statement to thesuit, and the temporary injunction application is pending fordisposal.

4 .Under the circumstances, the Court is not inclined tointerfere with the impugned order at this juncture. However,without entering into the merits of the case, it is directed that thetrial court shall decide the temporary injunction application asexpeditiously as possible after granting the respondentsreasonable opportunity, on merits and in accordance with law,without being influenced by the observations made in theimpugned order. With these observations, the appeal isdismissed. By this order, the stay application also standsdismissed.

R.Vaishnav27.

( Bela M. Tr ivedi) J.

"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in thejudgment/order being emailed." Ramesh Vaishnav Personal Assistant