Laxmi Narain and Another vs District Judge,Lalitpur and Others

S. Harkauli, J.—Despite issuance of notice, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not put in appearance. In the circumstances this writ petition is being decided exparte against the said respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

The petitioners are defendants in a suit instituted by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. After hearing both the plaintiffs and the defendants by order dated 331998, the trial Court rejected the application for interim injunction.

Being aggrieved by the order of trial Court dated 331998, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal No. 5 of 1998 before the respondent No. 1 and an injunction application Under Order 39, Rule 1, in which District Judge Lalitpur passed an ex parte interim injunction order on 341998, a copy of the said order is appended as Annexure9 to the writ petition. The provisions of Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C. Proviso has not been complied with by the appellate Court while passing the ex. pane injunction order. In the injunction order no reason has been recorded, therefore, the impugned order dated 341998 is not sustainable. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The order dated 341998 is hereby set aside.

The petitioners are however, directed to put in appearance in appeal, if they have not already put in appearance and to file their counteraffidavit within three weeks from today. The learned District Judge before whom the appeal is pending shall dispose of the application for interim injunction after hearing the parties on merits at an early date.