SMT. ANOKHI DEVI & 3 OTHERS Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the entire facts of the case have already come on record, he does not intend to file any counter affidavit, as such, the petition is being disposed of without calling counter affidavit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge ( Sr. Div.), Moradabad, which was registered as Original Suit No. 547 of 2014 on 1.7.2014, valuing the suit at Rs. 5 lakhs, alongwith an application to grant temporary injunction. Upon application for grant of temporary injunction, notices alone were issued and no ex-party injunction was granted. The first suit remained pending, where after a second suit was, filed before the Court of Judge Small Causes, showing the valuation of suit property as Rs. 25,000.00, for same relief on 9.7.2014 and in the subsequent suit, an ex-parte interim injunction was granted on the date of its filing i.e. 9.7.2014. On the very next day, an application was filed in the first suit, seeking its withdrawal. This withdrawal application has been allowed on 11.9.2014, noticing the stand of the plaintiff-respondent that he is no longer desirous of pursuing the suit. However, while allowing the application, permitting the plaintiff to not press the suit, the trial court has held that the plaintiff will have no right to institute a fresh suit.