KARAN SINGH Vs. SONIYA SINGH @ SONIYA MAJETHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellants, it transpires that the suit was instituted for cancellation of the sale deed; an injunction application was moved having being apprehended that the defendant may create third party interest on the property, in question. Defendant appeared on the date fixed, they moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. and did not file any objection against the injunction application.

(2.) THE time was granted for filing objections against the application under Order 7, Rule 11. The matter came up for hearing but the defendant sought further time to file the counter objections against the objections presented by the plaintiff resisting the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. Defendant was not prepared to submit any argument against the application moved by the plaintiff seeking ad interim injunction, so, learned Court below passed the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2014 directing to maintain the status -quo on the property. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has come up before this Court under this appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellants, the Court feels that the Court below has not committed any error in such situation when the defendant was not ready to argue against the ad interim injunction sought by the plaintiff, but at the same time it is hereby directed that the Court below will hear both the parties afresh on the ad interim injunction application coupled with application moved by the defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. after rendering opportunity to both the parties to file their objections/counter objections, if yet not been filed. Both the applications will be decided by the Court below on the merits without being prejudiced by the observations made in the impugned judgment, if any. Parties will maintain the status -quo on the property, in question, and they will also not create any third party interest in whatsoever manner.