AGGARWAL VAISH PANCHAYATPARDEEP Vs. PARDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has assailed the impugned order whereby the lower Curt has granted permission to the plaintiff-respondents to file a suit under Section 91, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) PETITIONER 's main grouse is that no opportunity was given to the defendant-petitioner to file reply to such application and without affording such opportunity and considering reply, the trial Court has granted permission to the plaintiff-respondents to file a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioners. He also pointed out that the defendant No. 1- petitioner had already filed a Caveat under Section 148-A, Civil Procedure Code against one Pandit Shakti Sharma but still no opportunity was given to the defendant No. 1-petitioner to file reply to the petition under Section 91, Civil Procedure Code. His last contention is that the impugned order is not a speaking one and thus, it is obvious that without applying judicial mind, the said discretionary order was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents.

(3.) FROM the impugned order, it is evident that the lower Court has not only considered the averments made in the petition but has also considered the plaint allegations and has held that in the totality of the circumstances and provisions of Section 91, Civil Procedure Code, the applicants are granted permission to institute the suit. Hence, it cannot be said that the order is not a speaking one or it shows that the judicial mind was not applied to the facts of the case.