This court ordered the trial court to finally decide the respondent-plaintiff's pending temporary injunction application within three months.
Directed the trial court to decide the temporary injunction application finally within three months.
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.
1
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15744/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.
ORDER
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15744/2015
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, JAIPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED & ANOTHER VS.
M/S. DBH FOOD POWER INDUSTRIES & ANOTHER.
DATE OF ORDER : 09.02.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Mr. Bipin Gupta, for the petitioners-defendants.
BY THE COURT:
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants contending that Respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, declaration and mandatory injunction under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 CPC with the prayer that the Respondent No. 1-plaintiff may be declared as consumer of sanction load of 335 HP along with 225 KVA contract demand and the penalty, which has been imposed by the defendants-petitioners may be declared null and void. It was further prayed that the defendants-petitioners may not cause any hindrance in usage of his connection of 335 HP sanctioned load along with 225 KVA contract demand. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff along with the suit filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction and for restraining the petitioners-defendants from disconnecting the electricity connection. Notices were issued by the trial court on 23.01.2015. On 27.01.2015, the petitioners-defendants took time to file the reply and on that date, the trial court directed to maintain
2
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15744/2015
status quo till filing of the reply and next date was fixed as 19.02.2015. The petitioners-defendants filed reply on 19.02.2015 and the matter was posted for 24.02.2015. On 24.02.2015, Respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, which was decided on 26.03.2015. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for 16.04.2015 for hearing on temporary injunction application, but on 16.04.2015, again an application was filed by Respondent No. 1-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with the purpose of delaying the proceedings. The said application was decided by the trial court on 05.08.2015. It is submitted that till date, temporary injunction application filed by Respondent No. 1 has not been decided and interim order is being continued by the trial court. Hence, this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submitted that pendency of temporary injunction application has given a shelter to the respondent-plaintiff, who is even not paying the bills and penalty and misusing the electricity connection beyond the sanctioned contract demand. The trial court, on one ground or the other, is extending the stay order without deciding temporary injunction application finally. It is settled principle of law that temporary injunction application, after grant of interim orders, should be decided within a period of thirty days finally, but in the present case, almost eight months have already been elapsed, but that application has not been decided by the trial court. It is, therefore, prayed that the trial court be directed to decide temporary injunction application filed by the Respondent No. 1-plaintiff at the earliest.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and perused the material on record, this Court is of the view that the ends
3
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15744/2015
of justice would meet, if the trial court is directed to decide temporary injunction application filed by Respondent No. 1-plaintiff at the earliest.
Consequently, writ petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court to decide temporary injunction application filed by Respondent No. 1-plaintiff finally at the earliest, but not later than a period of three months from the next date fixed in the matter before it.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.
Manoj, S.NO.161.
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” MANOJ NARWANI Personal Assistant.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court should be directed to decide the pending temporary injunction application filed by the respondent-plaintiff within a specified timeframe.
Whether the prolonged pendency of the temporary injunction application without final decision justifies intervention by this Court.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Chairman Cum Managing Director, Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited
M/s. DBH Food Power Industries
Respondent No. 1-plaintiff
Another
Another
Mohammad Rafiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
