GOGO RANI Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALONGWITH a petition moved in October 1992 underSections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, there was an interim application bearingNo-13757 of 1992 on which an ex parte order was passed on 21/01/1993. Theorder was as under:205"IA 13757/92Notice to respondent No.l for 6.5.1993. Meanwhile, the said respondent isrestrained from interfering in any manner with the exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the premises bearing No. WZ 8-A, Kirti Nagar, NewDelhi. Petitioner to comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3, C.P.C.within a week. Dasti."

(2.) CONSEQUENT upon service of the order so passed, the respondent moved anapplication for its vacation. It is that application (IA 2948/93) which has led to thisorder.

(3.) DOES this statement ring something? Let me make one thing clear and it isthat at this stage I am not finally adjudicating the matter. Surely this is no stage todo so. It is an appraisal of what has been brought on the record to have re-appraisalof the ex parte injunction order with a clearer vision and I do feel that on accountof what has come to be revealed the order needs to be varied.