Chhail Bihari vs Mahesh Chand Jain and Others

Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has preferred this intra court appeal against the order of Single Bench dated 11.2.2013 whereby writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 has been disposed of with certain directions.

The respondent No. 1, Mahesh Chand Jain filed a writ petition before the Single Bench with the prayer that the respondent No. 4 (present appellant), be directed not to interfere when the petitioner opens his shop. Submission of the writ petitioner before the Single Bench was that an interim order dated 18.2.2012 was passed in his favour that he will not be evicted forcefully but respondent No. 4 (present appellant) is threatening and not allowing him to open the shop. Learned Single Bench gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned court and it was observed that the said court will be duty bound to ensure the compliance of its own order, if necessary, by requisitioning the police aid.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Single Bench was not right in disposing of the writ petition ex-parte by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the trial court and in observing to provide police aid. He further submitted that the interim injunction order dated 18.2.2012 was extended only upto 12.5.2012 and not thereafter and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Single Bench. He further submitted that in absence of extended injunction order, liberty has been granted to approach the concerned court and observation has also been made to provide police aid, which is not legal and proper, particularly without hearing appellant. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Single Bench be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that interim injunction order dated 18.2.2012 was extended on 29.3.2012 and even if the same was not extended after 12.5.2012, the same will be deemed to have been extended. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in granting liberty and observation by the Single Bench in the impugned order.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and documents available on record that respondent No. 1, Mahesh Chand Jain is a tenant, he has filed the suit for injunction against the landlord/appellant along with an application for temporary injunction wherein interim injunction was passed in favour of the tenant till next date, which was extended till next date but thereafter the interim order was not extended.

Be that as it may, there is no dispute between the parties that the application for temporary injunction is still pending before the trial court. In these circumstances, without examining the matter or the order of the Single Bench any more, we deem it fit and proper to direct the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction within a period of 15 days.

Consequently, we dispose of this intra court appeal and direct the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Kumher, District Bharatpur to dispose of the application for temporary injunction pending in this matter within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of order of this court by proceedings day to day in the matter.

Stay Applications No. 4317/2013 stands disposed of.

IA No. 15954/2013 also stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the concerned court.