BUDDHAN AND OTHERS Vs. MAHESH BHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By impugned order dated 8.11.2017, the request made by the petitioners, who are plaintiffs of Original Suit No. 235 of 2015, for not proceeding further in the matter in view of pendency of a petition under Article 227 bearing No. 4646 of 2017 before this Court, has been rejected. It has been observed that this Court has not stayed the proceedings of the suit, but only the operation of the order impugned before it. It has also been observed that the defendant is pressing hard for disposal of temporary injunction application contending that his building material worth Rs. 20,00,000/- lying at the disputed site is getting wasted on account of the ex-parte injunction granted in favour of the petitioners. The trial court has held that it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the matter relating to temporary injunction.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petition filed before this Court by the petitioners is directed against the order dated 27.5.2017, whereby trial court has directed the petitioners to implead one Ali Hasan, as plaintiff no. 3. It is urged that the dispute relating to impleadment of Ali Hasan being subj-udice, the injunction matter could not be decided.

(3.) Indisputably, by order dated 10.8.2017, this Court has stayed the operation of the order of trial court dated 27.5.2017. The proceedings of the suit has not been stayed. The effect of order of this Court is that the plaintiff is not required to implead Ali Hasan as plaintiff no. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners are enjoying ex-parte ad interim injunction, which is being extended from time to time. The original defendant in the suit has filed his objections to the application for temporary injunction, contending that his building material is getting wasted. Under Order 39, Rule 3-A CPC, the court is under obligation to dispose of the application within 30 days from the date on which ex-parte injunction was granted. Under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC, any person dissatisfied with the order of injunction is permitted to file application praying for discharge/variance/setting aside of such order. The proviso to Rule 4 of Order 39 mandates that where injunction was granted without giving notice to opposite party, the court, if it comes to the conclusion that a party has succeeded in procuring injunction by making false or misleading statement, the court shall vacate the injunction order.