HEMANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to lays challenge to order dated 27.6.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.174-VI/2019, whereby an application under Section 80(2) having been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, seeking therein permission to institute suit without complying the provisions contained under Section 80 CPC, came to be rejected.

(2.) Having regard to the nature of the order proposed to be passed in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no necessity to call for reply from the respondents.

(3.) Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) from interfering in his peaceful possession and from dispossessing him forcibly from the place where he is running his business in the name and style of Mayur Trader at Badrol Subzi Mandi, Kullu, H.P., in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu,District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Alongwith the aforesaid suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Section 80(2) CPC, seeking therein leave of the Court to institute the suit without compliance of provisions contained under Section 80 CPC (Annexure P-2). In the application, as referred hereinabove, plaintiff claimed that the defendants are likely to remove his tent from Subzi Mandi, Bandrol, District Kullu, H.P., forcibly without there being any authority of law and as such, he has filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, but since relief claimed is of urgent nature, he be permitted to file suit without complying the provision of Section 80 CPC.