LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-54

BHUPENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA Vs. SAKINA

Decided On December 02, 2014
Bhupendra Prasad Shukla Appellant
V/S
SAKINA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, of the present case are that revisionist/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 758 of 2014 in which an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. has been moved. The court below/Incharge Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Court No. 15, Sultanpur prior to granting of ex parte injunction order, issue a notice to the defendants vide order dated 7.11.2014. In view of the said factual background, present revision has been filed by the plaintiff/revisionist challenging the order dated 7.11.2014 passed by court below.

(3.) U .P. Ordinance No. 25 of 2003 and 26 of 2003 by which second proviso has been added of Sub section 3 of the Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to learned Standing counsel these two ordinance have been incorporated in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Civil Procedure Code (U.P. Amendment) Act, 2003 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 2003). The said amendment has received the assent of the President on 19th December 2003 and the amended act has been published in the U.P. gazette Extra Part I, section (Ka), dated 20th December 2003. The original text of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as stood present under the Central Act as well as after U.P. Amendment of 2003, for convenience are reproduced as under: - -