The High Court dismissed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC challenging a trial court order that solicited affidavits before deciding an interim injunction application in a partition suit, finding no manifest error.
Appeal rejected; Trial Court directed to decide interim injunction application within two 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2824/2018
Kan Singh Tak S/o Shri Shanker Lal Tak, Aged About 48 Years, B/c Mali, R/o Gehloton Ka Bas, Brahmpuri, Mahamandir, Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. Gehlot.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
24/10/2018
Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC to challenge order dated 3rd of October, 2018 passed by Addl. District Judge Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). Learned trial Court by the order impugned has declined prayer of the appellant for grant of adinterim temporary injunction in a suit for partition filed by him.
From a bare perusal of the order, it is amply clear that application for temporary injunction of the appellant is still pending consideration and the trial Court has simply solicited
(2 of 2)
[CMA-2824/2018]
respondents reply to the same before deciding prayer for temporary injunction.
While it is true that dispute relates to immovable property and its partition, and therefore, it is rather difficult to comprehend that prayer made by the appellant for grant of temporary injunction is not tenable. However, it is for the Court to decide the prayer after examining the requisite ingredients for grant of temporary injunction in exercise of its discretion.
Learned trial Court in its wisdom has sought response of the respondent-defendants before deciding application for temporary injunction, and therefore, in my view, it has not committed any manifest error or illegality. Consequently, I feel disinclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is, hereby, rejected. However, it is expected of the learned trial Court to solicit reply of the respondent-defendants at the earliest and decide the application for temporary injunction as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months.
a.asopa/-23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the challenge to the impugned order refusing ad-interim temporary injunction in the appeal should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kan Singh Tak
Shanker Lal Tak
Vidya Devi
Man Singh
Shehlata
P.K. Lohra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
