High Court allowed petition to quash trial court proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC maintained after suit withdrawal. Court relied on Kanwar Singh Saini to rule that such applications survive only during suit pendency. Petition allowed, proceedings quashed.
Proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC maintained after suit withdrawal were quashed.
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.
$~20
versus
TEK CHAND NARULA & ORS
..... Respondents Through Mr. S.N. Chaudhri, Ms. Shruti Chaudhri and Mr Sukreet, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 17.03.2016
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Civil Judge wherein after the suit had been withdrawn, proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC were kept alive. Contention is that such an application can survive only during the pendency of the suit. To support this submission, reliance has been placed upon (2012) 4 SCC 307 Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi .
The impugned order arises of the suit which had been filed by Tek Chand Narula and Others against UCO Bank and another. This suit was finally withdrawn on 25.01.2010 as the suit property stood vacated by the Bank.
Learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent submits that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC which is an individual right against a person was maintainable and could have
been kept alive; the impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
Needless to state that this argument has been refuted and the reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) is well placed. This judgment has laid down the ratio that an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC survives only during the pendency of the suit and once the suit had been disposed of/decree, such an application which is distinct from an application under the Contempt of Court Act will not survive. Relevant extract of the aforenoted judgment which would be applicable to the proceedings before this Court are extracted herein as under:-
“ Once the suit has been decreed, the court could not entertain the application under Order 39, Rule 2A Code of Civil Procedure as the suit had already been decreed and such an application is maintainable only during the pendency of the suit in case the interim order passed by the court or undertaking given by the party is violated. ”
In this background, the petition is allowed. The proceedings before the Trial Court are quashed. Petition disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MARCH 17, 2016 A
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the CPC survives after the withdrawal or disposal of the suit
Whether proceedings on an interim injunction applicaton maintainable once the parent suit is closed and no longer pending
Whether the impugned order keeping alive proceedings post-suit dispositional is legally sustainable
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of DelhiFollowed¶11
(2012) 4 SCC 307 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
UCO BANK
TEK CHAND NARULA & ORS
INDERMEET KAUR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
