AMANDEEP SINGH Vs. AMANDEEP SINGH & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has obtained an order of status -quo in the suit as far back as on April 22, 2013. This appears to be reason enough for the plaintiff to be disinclined to argue the stay application for its final interim disposal. The lack of interest of the plaintiff in the stay application is evident from the order sheet dated May 17,2014 revealed from the judicial file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana. The petitioner is a defendant in the suit. He has filed his written statement in defence of the suit. However, he has not filed a reply to the stay application despite last and special opportunity granted to him by the trial court vide order dated August 17,2013 to do so. The petitioner/defendant was warned by the trial court that in case, he failed to file his reply to the stay application, his defence in the stay application will be struck off.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated August 17 2013, the petitioner filed an application for recall of the order which has been dismissed on April 11, 2014. Even on the next date of hearing, the plaintiff made no effort to address arguments on the stay application for making the status quo order absolute or to suffer vacation of the order. On the next date i.e. May 07, 2014, the plaintiff/respondent filed a replication to the main written statement and requested a date for addressing argument on the stay application. The case has been adjourned to July 23, 2014 for plaintiffs' evidence and for arguments on the stay application. If the trial court is yet to pass a final order on the application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2, CPC then it appears harsh not to allow the petitioner to file reply to the stay application so that the stay matter is heard and argued on merits. The learned trial court could have put the petitioner to costs under Section 35A, CPC, if the party was found prevaricating in its defence of the application. However, it cannot be said that while the plaintiffs have obtained a status -quo order they should be allowed to continue to enjoy it even they never would press the stay application on merits. The defendant would suffer grave loss if he is not heard on merits of the application leaving the plaintiffs to win by default. I would, therefore, interfere with the impugned orders. I however, find no necessity to summon the plaintiffs to afford them an opportunity of hearing in this Court for the reason that no prejudice will be caused to them.