Ritu Sharma vs Rajbir Singh

RAJENDRA MENON, CJ

CM APPL. 39790/2018(exemption)Â Â Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

FAO(OS) 144/2018

This appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.1 under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Rules read with Order 43 Rule 1 CPCÂ calls in question

tenability of the order dated 23.08.2018 passed in CS(OS) 2888/2015, whereby an application for grant of injunction has been allowed. On going

through the detailed order passed by the learned Court on 23.08.2018, we find that the appellant and her counsel were present before the Court on

23.08.2018 on the basis of advance notice served on them and without admitting the averments made in the application, they agreed to grant of

injunction in the terms indicated in the aforesaid order. Â

For the sake of brevity, we reproduce hereunder the entire order passed on 23.08.2018 impugned in this appeal:

“Present application has been filed by the plaintiff for grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction. Learned counsel for thedefendant, who appears on

advance notice, without admittingany of the averments in the application, states on instruction ofthe defendant who is personally present, that the

defendant hasneither restrained nor shall obstruct in any manner the ingressand egress facility of the plaintiff and/or his relatives orservants or friends

or plumbers or electricians to the suitpremises bearing no. 85, Shankar Vihar, Delhi â€" 110095. In view of the aforesaid statement, which is accepted

by this Court, present application stands disposed of.â€​

(Emphasis supplied)

Now after having made the statement before the learned Court on 23.08.2018, the appellant takes a somersault and contends that before granting

injunction the legal principles governing grant of injunction prima facie balance of convenience and irreparable losshave not been considered and the

application has been allowed in an illegal manner. Â

We do not appreciate the manner in which the applicant has approached this Court. Having admitted before the Court that they have neither

restrained nor shall obstruct the plaintiff in any manner the ingress and egress to the facilities available, their action in filing of this appeal cannot be

appreciated or accepted by this Court. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances, we see no reason to make an indulgence into the matter.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed even without issuing notice to the respondent.

CM APPL. 39789/2018 (Stay)

In view of the order passed in the appeal, no order is required to be passed in this application. Â

Accordingly, the application stands dismissed being infructuous.