9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting the petition to recall ad interim injunction order based on violation of Section 80(2) C.P.C. Analysis: The case involved an application under Section 115 C.P.C. challenging the order of the Munsif rejecting the petitioners' request to recall an ad interim injunction order. The opposite parties had filed a suit seeking declaration of title and possession over a land, along with an application for injunction. The petitioners argued that the suit was not maintainable without proper notice under Section 80(1) C.P.C. and that the ex parte injunction order was passed in violation of Section 80(2) C.P.C. The Munsif rejected the petitioners' application, citing reasons such as the fixed date for objections and ongoing separate proceedings under Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. However, the High Court found the Munsif's reasoning lacking, stating that he failed to address the urgency of the matter and the jurisdictional issues raised by the petitioners. The High Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 80 C.P.C. and directed the Munsif to dispose of the injunction matter promptly, vacating the impugned order. In conclusion, the High Court found no justification for the trial court's delay in considering the petitioners' objections regarding the ad interim injunction order. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 80 C.P.C. and directed the trial court to promptly address the injunction matter in accordance with the law. Both parties were instructed to appear before the trial court for further directions.
|
