Delhi High Court
Ritu Sharma vs Rajbir Singh on 26 September, 2018
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 26.09.2018
+ FAO(OS) 144/2018
RITU SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Sharma with Ms. Dezy
Gaur, Advs.
versus
RAJBIR SINGH ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
RAJENDRA MENON, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM APPL. 39790/2018 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
FAO(OS) 144/2018
1. This appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 under Section 10 of
Delhi High Court Rules read with Order 43 Rule 1 CPC calls in question
tenability of the order dated 23.08.2018 passed in CS(OS) 2888/2015,
whereby an application for grant of injunction has been allowed. On going
through the detailed order passed by the learned Court on 23.08.2018, we
find that the appellant and her counsel were present before the Court on
23.08.2018 on the basis of advance notice served on them and without
admitting the averments made in the application, they agreed to grant of
injunction in the terms indicated in the aforesaid order.
2. For the sake of brevity, we reproduce hereunder the entire order
passed on 23.08.2018 impugned in this appeal:
"Present application has been filed by the plaintiff for grant of
ex-parte ad interim injunction. Learned counsel for the
defendant, who appears on advance notice, without admitting
any of the averments in the application, states on instruction of
the defendant who is personally present, that the defendant has
neither restrained nor shall obstruct in any manner the ingress
and egress facility of the plaintiff and/or his relatives or
servants or friends or plumbers or electricians to the suit
premises bearing no. 85, Shankar Vihar, Delhi - 110095. In
view of the aforesaid statement, which is accepted by this
Court, present application stands disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Now after having made the statement before the learned Court on
23.08.2018, the appellant takes a somersault and contends that before
granting injunction the legal principles governing grant of injunction prima
facie balance of convenience and irreparable loss have not been considered
and the application has been allowed in an illegal manner.
4. We do not appreciate the manner in which the applicant has
approached this Court. Having admitted before the Court that they have
neither restrained nor shall obstruct the plaintiff in any manner the ingress
and egress to the facilities available, their action in filing of this appeal
cannot be appreciated or accepted by this Court. Taking note of the totality
of the circumstances, we see no reason to make an indulgence into the
matter.
5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed even without issuing notice
to the respondent.
CM APPL. 39789/2018 (Stay)
In view of the order passed in the appeal, no order is required to be
passed in this application.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed being infructuous.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018/ns
