Allahabad High Court
Sitara Bano And Another vs Meena Kumari And 2 Others on 16 May, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37467
Court No. - 17
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 30 of 2024
Revisionist :- Sitara Bano And Another
Opposite Party :- Meena Kumari And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Salman Abbas
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for revisionists and Mr. Piyush Srivastava, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.3. He is granted liberty to upload his power despite disposal of this Revision. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite parties 1 and 2 stand dispensed with.
2. Civil Revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Regular Suit No.1056 of 2024 instituted by the revisionists for permanent injunction.
3. It has been submitted that the plaint in aforesaid suit was accompanied by an Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which remained undecided due to which revisionists subsequently filed an Application under Section 151 of the Code which has been rejected by means of the impugned order.
4. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the trial court to have decided the Application for interim injunction or at least the Application under Section 151 of the Code in order to preserve the suit property and to ensure that no changes are effected thereupon during pendency of proceedings. It has been further submitted that opposite parties 2 and 3 have already put in appearance in the suit proceedings although no written statement has been filed till date while opposite party no.2 has filed an Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code which is still pending consideration
5. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.3 however refutes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionists with the submission that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any interim injunction or even temporary injunction in view of merits of the case particularly they are not entitled for the property on which they claim possession.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the impugned order rejecting Application under Section 151 of the Code has been passed primarily on account of pendency of Application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code and the Court concerned did not find it appropriate to issue any interim injunction in absence of defendants.
7. It also appears that now opposite parties 2 and 3 have already put in appearance in the suit proceedings with Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code also pending consideration before the court concerned. Learned counsel for revisionists submits that revisionists have already submitted his reply to Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code preferred by opposite party no.2.
8. In view of aforesaid facts particularly the fact that the next date fixed is 16.08.2024, liberty is granted to revisionists/plaintiffs to file an Application for preponement of the date fixed which shall be considered and decided by court concerned looking into urgency which has been expressed by learned counsel for revisionists.
9. The trial court is therefore directed to decide Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code which is pending consideration within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is brought on record of the proceedings.
10. In case the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code is rejected, the trial court is directed to decide the pending Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code within a period of two weeks thereafter after calling for objections from the defendants with regard to same.
11. In case the trial court is unable to decide the Application for temporary injunction for whatever reason, it shall consider grant of interim injuction in the meantime, in case the plaintiffs are able to make out a case for the same.
12. With aforesaid directions, the Revision stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024
kvg/-
