Disposed

Ishrat Jahan v. R.K. Srivastava and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2018A227/8844/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 seeking extension of a temporary injunction in a civil suit, the Court directed the trial court to first decide the defendants application to reject the plaint before considering the injunction extension, deeming it in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Directed trial court to decide application to reject plaint on next fixed date; extension of injunction to follow if plaint not rejected.

Ishrat Jahan Vs R.K. Srivastava and 3 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8844 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ishrat Jahan Respondent :- R.K. Srivastava And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Y.S. Saxena

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed seeking a direction to the trial court to decide the suit within a specified time and for a further direction to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for extension of injunction order dated 12.7.2016.

¶6

Initially, in the suit instituted by the petitioner, she was granted exparte injunction by order dated 12.7.2016. According to the petitioner, the said order could not be extended thereafter, as the court was lying vacant. On 5.11.2018, the court has passed an order observing that an application has been filed by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, therefore, it would not be proper to extend the order of temporary injunction. It has further been observed that while deciding application 6 Ga finally, the issue relating to extension of ad interim order would be considered.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court be directed to decide the application for extension of temporary injunction without waiting for a decision on application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶8

This Court is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Concededly, the injunction order is not in operation since 25.7.2016. The defendants have filed application 52 Ga for rejecting the plaint. The court has already fixed a date for disposal of the said application. In the opinion of the Court, interest of justice would be served in directing the trial court to decide application 52 Ga on the next date fixed by it and in case it comes to the conclusion that the plaint is not liable to be rejected, it shall proceed to decide the application 6 Ga filed by the petitioner and also consider request for extension of temporary injunction, after hearing the parties.

¶9

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶10

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶11

Order Date :- 30.11.2018 SL

Ishrat Jahan v. R.K. Srivastava and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishrat Jahan v. R.K. Srivastava and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikbal Kazmi Vs Smt.Shahida Begum Alias Seema

Ram Nath Ram Kishun Trust Thru Its President and Another Vs Uma Shankar

Satyendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs Rohit Kumar Sahu

Sarvajeet Singh and Another Vs Raghvendra

Sobaran Singh Vs Civil Judge and 2 Others

Asha and 2 Others Vs Chaman Lal and 2 Others