PAYASWINI SINGH Vs. ANIRUDH BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the Senior Civil Judge, Nainital to decide the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC filed in O.S. No.53 of 2023, Anirudh Bhatt vs. Payaswini Singh, as expeditiously as possible.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of alleged path for restraining the petitioner-defendant by way of a permanent injunction to use that path. In the said suit, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff and without issuing any notice to the defendant, an ex-parte temporary injunction was granted to the respondent-plaintiff by learned trial court and the notices were issued to the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner-defendant filed his objection on the application for temporary injunction on 10/10/2023 to which a replica was also filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The learned trial court ignoring all the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3A of CPC, which clearly enjoins a duty upon the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction within a period of 30 days, in case, ex-parte injunction is granted to the respondent-plaintiff and in the event of failure to decide such application within 30 days, reasons should be recorded by the court.