ROTARY INTERNATIONAL Vs. CIVIL JUDGE S D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a direction has been sought by the petitioners from this Court commanding the opposite party No. 1 to act within the bounds of jurisdiction vested in him and not to give any effect to the notice dated 3. 3. 2007, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, on the application under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of C. P. C. It has further been prayed that oppoisite party No. 1 be directed not to proceed any further with the said application until the appeal pending against the original order dated 28. 11. 2006 is decied in accordance with the directions issued by the lower Appellate Court and to keep the proceedings of the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A, C. P. C. in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal.

(2.) THE opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 instituted a suit for injunction, being Regular Suit No. 459 of 2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow. An application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A was also preferred for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the functioning of opposite party No. 3. the Trial Court vide its order dated 28. 11. 2006 passed a restraint order directing the petitioners not to interfere in the functioning of the opposite party No. 3. Being aggrieved the petitioners as well as opposite party No. 4 filed separate appeals being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 2007 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 9 of 2007. The Appellate Court vide its order dated 9. 1. 2007 stayed the operation of the order, dated 28. 11. 2006 and directed the parties to maintain status quo. In the meantime, it appears that the opposite party No. 3, Smt. Rita Mittal, approached the Trial Court in proceedings under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A, C. P. C. on the ground of alleged violation of the order dated 28. 11. 2006. In the said application apart from others, petitioners were also impleaded as opposite parties. The Trial Court vide its order dated 30. 3. 2007 directed the notices to be issued to the opposite parties. The application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A, C. P. C. has been registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 33-C of 2007. Copy of the said notice is Annexure-1, perusal of which reveals that the parties are to put in appearance on 20. 4. 2007 either personally or through Counsel. It is the issuance of this notice that is being complained about by the petitioners in the instant petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Anil Tewari, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No. 3.