AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ
The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 05.03.2021, passed by the Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Dehradun,
whereby the learned Judge has declined to pass an ex-parte interim order in favour of the plaintiff.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, since all the three factors, for grant of an ex-parte interim order, were present in the present
case, namely the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, the learned Judge was duty bound to pass an ex-
parte interim order in favour of the plaintiff.
This Court has asked a pointed query to Mr. Adarsh Rai, the learned counsel for the appellant, whether the defendants, have been served with the
notice, or not? To this query, the learned counsel submits that the defendants have, indeed, been served, and Vakalatnama has been filed before the
learned Trial Court.
It is, indeed, trite to state that to grant, or not to grant an ex-parte order is totally within the discretion of the Court. Even if, prima facie, the three
factors are made out, even then the Court would be justified in not granting an ex-parte order, and in directing that first the notice should be served on
the opposite party. It is only after hearing the defendants that the Trial Court would be justified in passing an interim order, or in rejecting the same.
Moreover, even in the present appeal, the appellant has prayed that an ex-parte ad-interim order should be passed against respondent nos. 1 and 2,
the defendants before the Trial Court. However, the said prayer cannot be granted by this Court for the simple reason that the defendants have
already put in appearance before the learned Trial Court.
Although the learned counsel claims that the defendants are likely to sell off the property, however, even then the appellant has sufficient number of
legal remedies against the defendants.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The appeal is, hereby, dismissed.