GMNCO LIMITED Vs. RAVI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant questioning the legality and validity of the order passed on 18.2.1999 by learned Single Judge on the plaintiff/respondent's application (IA.1636/99) filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure where by learned Single Judge by way of an ex parte ad interim order of injunction restrained the appellant from getting the machines released from the bond of Bombay Customs, which find a mention in the prayer clause of the said application. The main grievance of the appellant has been that though the appellant applied for vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction, learned Single Judge did not decide the same within the time limit, as provided in Rule 3(A) of Order 39 Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, appeal against the said order would be maintainable in view of the decision of Supreme Court dated 19.9.2000 in CA No. 5102 of 2000 (A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S-Chellappan and others)

(2.) The appellant/respondent put in appearance after show cause notice on 4.12.2000. We called for the record of learned Single Judge for 19.12.2000 and on that date noticed that the learned Single Judge had fixed for hearing the application for the vacation of injunction along with another application for 9.1.2001. As such hearing of the appeal was postponed by us to 22.1.2001. On the adjourned date, we were informed that though arguments were to be addressed on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 but the said application has been adjourned without a date. It was because of the objection raised by learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent to the written statement filed by the defendant/appellant to,the amended plaint. It was stated at the bar that learned: Single Judge had heard the said application moved by the plaintiff for taking off the written statement to the amended plaint from the record. Learned Single Judge had reserved order only on that application. In these circumstances, since learned Single Judge had failed to take decision on the application for vacation of of ex parte ad-interim order of injunction that we .heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the appeal.

(3.) Four our perusal copies of pleadings and documents were made available by learned counsel for the appellant. We heard learned counsel for the parties, who took us through the entire record.