INDRAJIT BAKSHI Vs. PANNALAL BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent inviting attention two orders dated 7.1.98 and 19.1.98 pointed out that show cause notice against admission of this appeal being there, the question of granting stay vide order dated 19.1.98, could not be there.

(2.) In view of the anomalous situation, that has been created by the two orders at one stage of hearing, it was suggested that keeping open the question of admission, the learned counsel for the respondent can still make his submissions. It was with reference to Rule 4 Order 39 of the CPC that the learned counsel for respondent urged that instead of moving the trial Court, the appellant has straightway rushed to this Court with the present appeal countering his argument. The learned counsel for the appellant maintained that both the courses are available to the aggrieved parties against whom an exparte injunction is passed. The legal position as urged, cannot be disputed.

(3.) The question is one of expeditious disposal either of this appeal or the application for injunction pending before the trial Court because delay in either case is bound to affect the parties one way or the other to avoid any such adverse effect, a via media was suggested to the learned counsel appearing for the parties and they readily agreed, instead of going into the merits of the impugned order, it is left to the trial Court to decide the question as a whole on merits and it is open to the appellant to place all the materials available to him and make his submissions on merits for any modification, alteration or cancellation, of the order dated 16.12.97 as passed by the trial Court. The appellant's anxiety is that the stay order as passed by this Court, staying the operation of the order dated 16.12.97 should continue so as to provide some breathing space to the appellant to appear and make his submissions before the trial Court.