A petition seeking an injunction was dismissed as infructuous by the High Court. The petitioner admitted the trial court had already granted status quo, making the petition's relief redundant despite an earlier order requesting the trial court's explanation for delay.
Petition disposed of as infructuous; trial court directed to submit explanation for delay.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
Rohitash Singh S/o Shri Nathu Singh, aged about 66 years, b/c Rajput, R/o Dhani Duley Singh, Tan bad Nagar, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj).
Ashok Singh S/o Shri Shispal Singh, b/c Rajput, R/o Dhani Duley Singh, Tan bad Nagar, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj).
Date of Order: March 07, 2018.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Ajay Gupta, for the petitioner.
BY THE COURT :
Mr. Ajay Gupta counsel for the petitioner states that on the matter being listed before the trial court on petitioner-plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC the order of status quo in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff has been passed.
He submitted that in this view of the matter, this petition, in the context relief prayed for, has been rendered infructuous. He however pointed out that this court vide order dated 15-1-2018 required the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kotputli to submit his explanation for not having passed order on petitioner-plaintiff's
2
application under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC for four months despite a report of local commissioner pointing out that respondentdefendants were carrying out construction and against which injunction was sought.
I am of the view that the explanation of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kotputli called for by this court vide order dated 15-12018 is a matter unrelated to merits of the petition, which on submission of counsel for the petitioner has been rendered
infructuous.
The petition stands accordingly disposed of as infructuous.
However, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to convey this order to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kotputli and required him to send his explanation in compliance of the order dated 15-12018 passed by this court.
On receipt of the explanation let the petition be listed before
the court for the limited purpose of taking it on record and passing orders thereon if necessary.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/
3
All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for injunction has become infructuous given the status quo order passed by the trial court?
Whether the matter can be disposed of in view of the infructuous nature of the petition?
Whether the petitioner's counsel may have waived non-submission of explanation by the trial court Judge?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rohitash Singh
Ashok Singh
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
