AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.N. Kirpal, J.
(1) On the last date of bearing the case was adjourned for a short date because there was an ex-parte injunction which had been issued, and the defendant was wanting the vacation thereof. The defendant has filed an application under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC to which no reply has been filed till today, nor has any rejoinder been filed in is 1433/88 to the reply filed by the defendant. Counsel for the plaintiff asks for more time. Counsel for the defendant submits that he has no objection to the adjournment being granted, provided the interim injunction is vacated.
(2) In my opinion, the submission of counsel for the defendant is justified. If the plaintiff has not filed a reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 4 within the prescribed period, then the plaintiff cannot ask for the continuation of the ex-parte injunction. I accordingly vacate the ex-parte injunction, but give time to the plaintiff of file the reply to IA. 1965 ''88 and the rejoinder to the reply in IA. 1433/88 within a week. Rejoinder to the reply in is 1965/88 be filed within a week thereafter.
(3) Let the applications be listed for disposal on 16th May 1988.
(4) Copy of this order be given dusty to counsel for the defendant.
--- *** ---