MADAN SWAROOP SHROTRIYA TRUST Vs. SMT. UMA SHROTRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very outset, Sri P.K. Jain, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondents submits that opposite party no.1 has died. This fact is disputed. However, it is admitted to the respondents that heirs of respondent no.1 are already on record of the proceedings. Since the heirs of opposite party no.1 are already on record, this Court can proceed with disposal of the matter, on merits.

(2.) This petition is directed against an order dated 25th Aug., 1995, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff under Sec. 144/151 C.P.C. was allowed. The application under Sec. 144/151 C.P.C. was filed on the premise that initially while entertaining the suit an ex-parte injunction was passed on 15th Nov., 1994, which had been violated, and therefore, the plaintiff's possession is liable to be restored over the suit property. This application under Sec. 144/151 C.P.C. was allowed. Aggrieved by it, a revision was filed. Initially, the revision was dismissed on 11.10.1995, but a challenge made to such order in Writ Petition No.29403 of 1995 succeeded, and the revision was directed to be considered afresh on merits. It is pursuant to such directions issued by the writ court dated 27.10.1995 that this revision has now been decided, on merits. The revisional court has dismissed the revision with costs, vide order dated 2.2.2015.

(3.) Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the defendant petitioner, contends that ex-parte injunction was granted on 15.11.1994, whereafter, the suit itself has been dismissed on 27th Nov., 2006, and although a restoration application has been filed, but the order dismissing suit in default continues to remain in existence, even as on date. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that once the suit has been dismissed and continues to remain as such, the ex-parte injunction granted on 15.11.1994, merged with dismissal of the suit, vide order dated 27.11.2006, and in such view of the matter, the application under Sec. 144/151 C.P.C. could not be sustained. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that revision was liable to have been disposed of noticing the aforesaid facts, but the same has not been done, rather the revision has been rejected, on merits, which will have the effect of reviving the order of the trial court dated 25th Aug., 1995, which is impermissible in view of the dismissal of suit.