AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Ajay Gupta counsel for the petitioner states that on the matter being listed before the trial court on petitioner-plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC the order of status quo in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff has been passed.
He submitted that in this view of the matter, this petition, in the context relief prayed for, has been rendered infructuous. He however pointed out that this court vide order dated 15-1-2018 required the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kotputli to submit his explanation for not having passed order on petitioner-plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC for four months despite a report of local commissioner pointing out that respondentdefendants were carrying out construction and against which injunction was sought.
I am of the view that the explanation of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kotputli called for by this court vide order dated 15-12018 is a matter unrelated to merits of the petition, which on submission of counsel for the petitioner has been rendered infructuous.
The petition stands accordingly disposed of as infructuous.
However, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to convey this order to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kotputli and required him to send his explanation in compliance of the order dated 15-12018 passed by this court.
On receipt of the explanation let the petition be listed before the court for the limited purpose of taking it on record and passing orders thereon if necessary.