Justice Arun Monga in a petition to dispose of the application for ad interim injunction noted the lackadaisical approach undertaken by the Trial Court without any justifications for the delay and directed the registry to convey this order to all the Trial Courts of the state in order to sensitize them about the importance and significance of timely disposal of injunction applications.
Brief Facts:
The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit for the decree of possession as well as an application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC and this petition has been filed for seeking directions for disposing of the application for ad interim injunction.
Contentions of the Petitioner
It is contended that the Learned Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and has been adjourning the matter again and again without disposing off the application as required under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC, this is said to be against the said provisions as well as the settled law in this area.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the petitioners, in this case, are aggrieved by the pendency of the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, even when an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in favor of respondent/plaintiff way back on 14.12.2018. After the service was affected upon the petitioners, they filled their written statements and the case was then pending for consideration and disposal of a pending application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The court also noted that the sequence of zimni proceedings before the Ld. Trial Courts are reflective of the lackadaisical approach by Ld. Court below. The same has also been reproduced in chronological order, as a part of the judgment.
Further as per the sequence of the dates of hearings before the Ld. Trial Court, this Hon’ble Court noted that there was a zero-period due to the intervention by the pandemic, and to that extent, there was no fault of the Ld. Court. But apart from that there is no justification that can be given for the lackadaisical manner in which the Ld. Trial Court proceeded to disregard the duty that was cast upon it as per the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC.
The said provision provides for the timeframe under which the court was obligated to dispose of the injunction application. The court even accepted that procedural provisions are of directory nature and not mandatory, but there seems to be no justification to overlook as many as 51 adjournments and most of them had been granted without recording any reason
Judgment of the Court:
The Hon’ble High Court directed the Ld. Trial Court is to dispose of the pending application within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Further, it was also directed that the registry shall convey this order to Ld. Presiding Officer of Trial Court as well as to Ld. District Judges of the States of Punjab, Haryana, and U.T. Chandigarh for sensitizing Ld. Presiding Officers of Trial Courts about the significance and importance of timely disposal of injunction applications in such pending cases.
The court also noted while giving the judgment that the delay cannot be attributed to one particular Presiding Officer, However, it is the duty of every Presiding Officer to be self-vigilant and mindful of the duty envisaged under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3A CPC.
Case Title: Jaspal Singh and others v. M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Monga
Case No.: CR-1184-2023 (O&M)
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. N.K Verma ; Mr. Ankush Verma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
