Petitioner challenged an interim injunction granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The court noted petitioner's false statement regarding service of dasti summons and dismissed the petition.
Petition challenging interim injunction dismissed.
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.
C.R.No.4787 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
C.R.No.4787 of 2010 Date of decision:27.9.2010
Atma Singh
...Petitioner
vs
Bahal Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Present: Mr.Mohd.Yousaff, Advocate, for the petitioner
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral)
The petitioner, who is defendant No.2 before the trial Court, has filed this petition challenging the impugned order passed on an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby an interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffrespondent.
Notice of motion was issued to respondent No.1 vide order dated 31.8.2010 and he was ordered to be served by way of dasti. Petitioner was also granted liberty to serve respondent No.1 through counsel who was representing him in the trial Court.
On 20.9. 2010, it was stated before this Court that dasti notices issued to respondent No.1 were sent to the petitioner who in turn deposited the same with the processing agency at Malerkotla, and the report on the summons was supposed to be sent to this Court directly. The case was adjourned for today and the concerned authority was sent a reminder
C.R.No.4787 of 2010
2
seeking his report on the dasti summons.
Mr.M.D.S.Dhillopn, Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla vide his memo No.304 dated 25.9.2010, has submitted that no such notices/summons from this Court were received by the Nazir of his Court for effecting service. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to serve the respondent and has mis-stated the facts before this Court, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge
September 27, 2010
rk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the grant of interim injunction when the petitioner mis-stated facts regarding service of summons.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Atma Singh
Bahal Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
