AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathra
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.9.2011, passed on I.A. No. II, in O.S.No. 1734/1994(Annexure -J).
It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed a suit for specific; performance of agreement of sate dated 26.3.1991. In the said suit, an order of temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants has been granted restraining them from alienating the suit schedule property.
According to the petitioner, respondents/defendants have executed an agreement of sale dated 9.11.2006, contending that there has been violation of the temporary injunction, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC was filed by the petitioner.
On the said application, the Trial Court has held that the same would be considered along with the main suit The said order is assailed In this writ petition,
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The contention of the petitioner is that the said application ought to have been considered prior to considering the main suit and that evidence on the same has to be tat in. Therefore, the order dated 5.9-2011 stating that the application would be considered along with the main suit is incorrect.
Having heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, I find that the said order would not call for any interference for the simple reason that the case is posted for cross- examination of P.W. 1. The violation of temporary injunction order alleged by the petitioner could be considered along with the main suit. Since the case is at the stage of the evidence of the P.W. 1, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to also let in evidence on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of CPC by filing an appropriate application before the Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference.
The writ petition is rejected subject to the aforesaid liberty.