Disposed

Smt Meena v. Hakimuddin and Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2015CW/10980/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking directions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court directed the trial court to decide a pending application for temporary injunction within six weeks due to a two-year delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Smt Meena Vs Hakimuddin and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S. B. Ci vi l Wr i t Pet i t i on no. 10980/ 2014

¶5

Smt . Meena vs Haki muddi n and or s

¶6

Dat e of Or der : 09/ 01/ 2015

¶7

HON' BLE MR. JUSTI CE J. K. RANKA

¶8

Mr . Vi j ay Pooni a f or t he pet i t i oner

¶9

I nst ant pet i t i on has been f i l ed under Ar t i cl es 226 and 227 of Const i t ut i on of I ndi a seeki ng a di r ect i on t o t he t r i al cour t t o deci de t he appl i cat i on of t empor ar y i nj unct i on f i l ed by

¶10

t he pet i t i oner - pl ai nt i f f i n t he sui t

¶11

expedi t i ousl y.

¶12

The pr ayer made i n t he wr i t pet i t i on i s as

¶13

under :

¶14

“ I t i s, t her ef or e, humbl y and r espect f ul l y pr ayed t hat t hi s Hon' bl e Cour t may be pl eased t o accept and al l ow t hi s wr i t pet i t i on and t i s Hon' bl e Cour t f ur t her be pl eased t o di r ect t he l ear ned Addi t i onal Di st r i ct Judge No. 2, Jhunj hunu camp at Chi r awa t o expedi t e t he t r i al of t he sui t as i nst i t ut ed by t he pl ai nt i f f pet i t i oner bear i ng no. 46/ 2012 t i t l ed as Smt Meena vs Haki muddi n and ot her s. The Hon' bl e Cour t may f ur t her be pl eased t o di r ect t he l ear ned t r i al cour t t o adj udi cat e t he appl i cat i on f or gr ant of t empor ar y i nj unct i on as f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner bear i ng no. 129/ 2012 i n t he ci vi l sui t i n expedi t i ous manner . ”

¶15

The br i ef f act s of t he case ar e t hat t he pl ai nt i f f pet i t i oner f i l ed a sui t bef or e t he

¶16

¶17

l ear ned Di st r i ct Judge, Jhunj hunu f or set t i ng asi de t he j udgment and decr ee dat ed 19. 4. 2001 and f or cancel l at i on of sal e deeds al ong wi t h an appl i cat i on f or t empor ar y i nj unct i on.

¶18

The sai d sui t was l i st ed f or gr ant of ad i nt er i m i nj unct i on bef or e t he l ear ned Addl . Sessi ons Judge, Jhunj hunu on 21. 12. 2012 and t he cour t i ssued not i ce t o def endant s and f i xed t he dat e of appear ance of t he def endant as 8. 2. 2013. Not i ce wer e not i ssued on 21. 12. 2012. Agai n not i ces wer e i ssued and dat e of appear ance of def endant s was f i xed as 17. 3. 2014, on t hi s day wor k was suspended and t he case was f i xed f or 1. 5. 2014. Respondent no. 2 r epr esent ed t hr ough hi s l awyer and ser vi ce on ot her r espondent s wer e not compl et ed and t he case was adj our ned.

¶19

Counsel f or t he pet i t i oner has submi t t ed t hat appl i cat i on of i nt er i m or der was f i l ed i n 2012 and even af t er t wo year s t he sai d appl i cat i on has not been di sposed of .

¶20

Counsel f or t he pet i t i oner f ur t her pl eaded t hat t he t r i al cour t ought t o have at l east deci ded t empor ar y i nj unct i on appl i cat i on l ooki ng t o t he ur gency i n t he mat t er , He

¶21

pl eads t hat t he cour t bel ow be di r ect ed t o expedi t i ousl y di spose of t he mat t er at l east f or t empor ar y i nj unct i on whi ch i s pendi ng f or t he l ast t wo year s.

¶22

Wi t hout goi ng i nt o mer i t s of t he case and

¶23

¶24

consi der i ng t he f act s as st at ed by counsel f or t he pet i t i oner i n t he wr i t pet i t i on t hat t empor ar y i nj unct i on appl i cat i on i s pendi ng f or t wo year s, t he t r i al cour t i s di r ect ed t o deci de t he appl i cat i on f or t empor ar y i nj unct i on f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner wi t hi n a per i od of si x weeks f r om t he dat e of r ecei pt of cer t i f i ed copy of t hi s or der i s pl aced bef or e i t .

¶25

The wr i t pet i t i on wi t h above di r ect i on st ands di sposed of accor di ngl y.

¶26

( J. K. Ranka) , J

¶27

om 56 Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng e- mai l ed. Om pr akash P. A.

Smt Meena v. Hakimuddin and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Meena v. Hakimuddin and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Deepika Sharma Vs Smt Sushial and Ors.

Smt Geeta Devi Vs Sampat Badhara and Ors.

Smt Kamlesh Sachdeva Vs Rajender Prasad Gupta Anr.

M/S Saboo Cement Industries Ajmer Vs a C T O WARD-5 Ajmer

M/S Saboo Cement Industries Ajmer Vs a C T O WARD-5 Ajmer

M/S Saboo Cement Industries Ajmer Vs a C T O WARD-5 Ajmer