PREETAM SINGH Vs. HAR GULAL AND 5 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Stamp Reporter has reported laches by 141 days in bringing this writ petition.

(2.) Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who claims to be defendant in Suit No.231 of 2012 (Hargu Lal Vs. Dungar Singh & others) and is aggrieved by the orders dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Chhata, Mathura, whereby he has granted an ex-parte temporary injunction to the plaintiff-respondent as also the appellate order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the District Judge, Mathura in Misc. Appeal No.10 of 2013 (Preetam Singh Vs. Hargu Lal & others ) wherein he has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and directed the Trial Court to decide the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 39, Rule 4 C.P.C. for vacation of the ex-parte injunction order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submission on the merits of his case by stating that the ex-parte injunction could not have been granted in view of the documents, sale deeds filed before the Trial Court and therefore his appeal has been wrongly rejected.

(3.) Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, it appears that an ex-pare injunction order was granted by the Trial Court on 29.11.2012 to the plaintiff-respondent to which the petitioner has admittedly filed his application under Order 39, Rule 4 C.P.C. to vacate the same. Such application has been filed as annexure alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed today. The Appellate Court has found that the grievance of the petitioner is to be considered on perusal of the evidence filed by the plaintiff-respondent in support of his application which the petitioner has disputed.