WPMS/771/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 738 UK

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                  AT NAINITAL
                 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI

                  WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 771 OF 2023
                              21ST MARCH, 2023
BETWEEN:
Manjula Mukherjee                                               .....Petitioner.
And
Mittu Mukherjee & others                                        ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

The petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to

assail the order dated 07.12.2022, passed by the learned

Civil Judge, Haridwar in Suit No.410 of 2022, preferred by the

petitioner to the extent that the learned Civil Judge Haridwar

has refused to entertain temporary injunction application

under Order 39 Rules 1 ad 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C,

and has refused to grant ad interim ex parte injunction in

favour of the plaintiff/petitioner.

2. The order-sheet shows that on 07.12.2022, the

Court while issuing summons in the aforesaid Suit, found that

it was necessary to hear the opposite party before passing

any order on the application. Consequently, notice was issued

to the defendant, returnable on 17.12.2022. The

petitioner/plaintiff, however, apparently did not serve the

respondents-defendants, and consequently, once again

summons were issued to the defendants, returnable on

10.01.2023. Once again, the defendants were not served,

and the matter was adjourned to 17.01.2023. On

17.01.2023, the Court directed issuance of summons to the

defendants. Once again, the defendants were not served. This

position has continued to remain the same, as disclosed by

the order-sheet.

3. The Trial Court has not disposed of the application

preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1

and 2 of C.P.C. It is still pending consideration. The petitioner

seems to be responsible for not serving the defendants/

respondents in the Suit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that

respondent no.1 has obtained decree for possession against

respondent nos.2 and 3, which is under execution. The

interim relief sought by the petitioner/ plaintiff in her Suit was

to seek the stay of the said decree. Prima facie, it appears

that such a relief was not even maintainable at the instance

of the petitioner.

5. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the present

writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

Dated: 21st March, 2023 NISHANT