Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), challenged the order of the Additional District Judge, Washim, dated 30.04.2005, which allowed the respondent's appeal and directed reconnection of the STD/PCO facility that had been disconnected on 13.10.2004. The respondent had filed Regular Civil Suit No.10/2005 for permanent injunction and an application for temporary and mandatory injunction, which was rejected by the Civil Judge on 02.04.2005. The appellate court reversed that decision. On 08.07.2005, the High Court noted the respondent's undertaking to deposit Rs.10,000/- within 6 weeks and observed that upon such deposit, the facility would be restored. The High Court issued rule and expedited the hearing. After 4½ years, the High Court found that the interim order had been in operation and there was no record of payment or reconnection. The Court held that it was not necessary to consider the controversy on merits and directed the trial court to decide the Regular Civil Suit expeditiously, preferably within six months, without being influenced by the observations in the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Expeditious Disposal - The High Court, in a writ petition challenging an appellate order directing reconnection of a telephone facility, declined to interfere on merits and instead directed the trial court to dispose of the Regular Civil Suit expeditiously, noting that the interim order had been in operation for 4½ years and the respondent had undertaken to deposit Rs.10,000/-. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate court's order directing reconnection of telephone facility pending suit, or whether the suit should be expeditiously disposed of.
Final Decision
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim to decide Regular Civil Suit No.10/2005 expeditiously, preferably within six months, without being influenced by any observations in the judgment. The interim order passed by the appellate court was allowed to continue until disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Interim relief
- expeditious disposal of suit
- undertaking to deposit amount
- maintenance of status quo
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 362
Writ Petition No. 3222 of 2005
Mr. R.S. Sundram (for petitioners), Mr. Mardikar h/f Mr. K.M. Kharkate (for respondent)
General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Akola and Sub Divisional Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Malegaon
Sau. Latabai w/o Ramesh Awachar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging appellate court order directing reconnection of telephone facility pending civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (BSNL) sought to quash the appellate court order dated 30.04.2005 directing reconnection of STD/PCO facility.
Filing Reason
The respondent's STD/PCO facility was disconnected on 13.10.2004; she filed a suit for permanent injunction and an application for temporary and mandatory injunction, which was rejected by the trial court but allowed by the appellate court.
Previous Decisions
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim rejected the application for temporary and mandatory injunction on 02.04.2005. Additional District Judge, Washim allowed Misc. Civil Appeal No.11/2005 on 30.04.2005, directing reconnection.
Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate court's order directing reconnection of telephone facility pending suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners' counsel argued that in view of the order dated 08.07.2005, the petition could be disposed of by directing the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously.
Ratio Decidendi
When an interim order has been in operation for a long period and the suit is pending, it is not necessary for the High Court to consider the controversy on merits; instead, the trial court should be directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Judgment Excerpts
In view of the position pointed out by Shri Sundram, learned counsel, I have considered the records of the Writ Petition.
It is therefore, apparent that, the respondent plaintiff had undertaken to deposit amount of Rs.10,000/ and then the facility was to be reconnected.
It is therefore, clear that in this situation, it is not necessary for this Court to consider the controversy on merits and interest of justice can be met with by directing the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim to decide the Regular Civil Suit No.10/2005 expeditiously.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No.10/2005 for permanent injunction and an application for temporary and mandatory injunction (Exh.5). The trial court rejected the application on 02.04.2005. The respondent filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.11/2005, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge on 30.04.2005, directing reconnection. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on 08.07.2005, and the High Court issued rule and expedited the hearing. After 4½ years, the High Court disposed of the petition directing expeditious disposal of the suit.
