Madhuri Devi vs Learned Civil Judge (S.D.) and others

Abhinava Upadhya, J.

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the caveator respondents.

This is defendant''s petition. By means of this petition the petitioner prays that 6C application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC in Suit No. 1350 of 2011 filed for permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that the suit property being joint property and the coshares has executed a lease deed in favour of the defendant without their consent and by virtue of the aforesaid lease deed the defendants are trying to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, they be restrained from interfering as such, be decided.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, lease deed was executed with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff upon consideration of Rs. 5000/ per month for 30 years for establishing a retail outlet for selling of product of Indian Oil Corporation.

Along with the plaint the interim injunction application was filed and an ex parte interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff.

By means of this petition the petitioner prays that interim injunction application no.6C be considered and decided after considering the objection of the petitioner which is said to have been filed on 25.4.2012.

This petition is disposed of with the observation that the court below would consider the aforesaid application no.6C of the plaintiffsrespondents taking into account the objection filed by the petitionerdefendant and pass appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law keeping in mind the interest of both the parties and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties provided there is no other legal impediment in the same, inasmuch as, no interim order is operating against the disposal of the said case.