A petitioner sought a direction to dispose of a pending interim injunction application and maintain status quo. The court dismissed the petition because Section 10 of the CPC barred the proceedings due to another suit on the same property being instituted earlier.
No direction to dispose of the interim injunction application issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141885
Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3792 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt.Urmila Respondent :- Rana Rajmangal Singh 18 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Srivastava,Saurabh Counsel for Respondent :- Om Prakash Singh,Gautam Baghel
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1.
Though, this petition has been filed seeking various reliefs, however, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has stated that he is pressing only prayer no.2 which is as follows:
"ii) Issue a order or direction to the learned Court below finally dispose of interim injunction application 6-C on the next date fixed and till the disposal of said application the status quo shall be maintained with regard to the disputed land as well as houses."
It is contended that a suit was filed in February 2023 and the application for temporary injunction paper no. 6-C is pending and the matter has not been decided. It is stated that initially an ad interim injunction was granted by the order dated 10.2.2023 which came to be vacated by an order of the trial court dated 20.2.2023 on the ground that the caveat filed had not been reported. It is, therefore, prayed that the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner-plaintiff be decided.
Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection that given the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the suit in which the petitioner is pressing application for temporary injunction cannot proceed given the fact that previously instituted suit being Original Suit No. 15 of 2023 was filed by the plaintiffpetitioner in respect of the same property.
This fact is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under the circumstances, no direction as sought for can be issued.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.7.2023 sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J)
Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction to dispose of an interim injunction application can be issued when a bar of res sub judice under Section 10 of the CPC exists.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Urmila
Rana Rajmangal Singh
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
