Disposed

The Chief Manager, v. Hemaram

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2019CW/7776/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismisses a civil writ petition challenging an ad-interim injunction via an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC. The court directs the petitioner to file an appeal with a stay application and notes an assurance regarding pending contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal on or before 10.07.2019 with appropriate stay; Writ petition disposed.

The Chief Manager, Vs Hemaram — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7776/2019

¶4

The Chief Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd., 155-156, Rathi Chambers, Opposite Krishi Mandi, Basani, Jodhpur.

¶5

The Branch Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd., Station Road, Barmer.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Hemaram S/o Shri Ratanaram, B/c Jat, R/o Baldev Nagar, Tehsil And District Barmer.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar with Mr. Ayush Gehlot. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal.

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

05/07/2019

¶14

The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.06.2019, passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), vide which an ad-interim injunction had been issued in favour of the sole respondent.

¶15

Mr. Rishabh Tayal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent at the outset submits that against grant of ad-interim injunction, an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been specifically provided and writ petition is thus not maintainable before this Court.

¶16

In support of his arguments, Mr. Tayal relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in SB Civil Writ Petition

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CW-7776/2019]

¶19

No.14872/2017 : Kamlesh Vs. The Civil Judge, Bikaner &

¶20

Ors. dated 24.11.2017 and other judgments.

¶21

Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while conceding the above referred position of law, brings to notice of this Court the fact that the trial Court has granted a mandatory injunction on the one hand and is pressing hard for taking action against the petitioner in the contempt petition filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure on the other. The contempt petition is reported to be today itself and he shows apprehension that in wake of insistence by the respondent in the contempt petition, some order prejudicial to the petitioner-Bank can be passed.

¶22

Mr. Panwar thus prays for some protection to ward off any coercive action against petitioner-bank.

¶23

The petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy of appeal, which he may file on or before 10.07.2019 alongwith appropriate stay application.

¶24

Mr. Rishabh Tayal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff assures that till 17.07.2019 he will not pursue the contempt petition.

¶25

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶27

13-A.Arora/-

The Chief Manager, v. Hemaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Manager, v. Hemaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Kumari Gadri Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Lal Vs State and Anr.

Lrs of Ramesh Chand Vs Kulwant Kaur

Yogendra Singh Vs Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Associated Soapstone Dis. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs State and Ors.

Vidhyasagar Acharya Vs State of Rajasthan