Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in a suit, challenged the order of injunction passed by the trial court restraining them from disturbing the plaintiff's possession over the suit property. The trial court's order was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Baramati, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.44 of 2004 on 3.3.2005. Aggrieved, the defendants filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. On 17.8.2005, the High Court granted rule and an interim order staying the operation of the lower courts' judgment and order. The interim order continued until the final hearing. The High Court, noting that the interim order was operating, made the rule absolute in terms of the interim order, thereby staying the injunction. Additionally, the High Court directed the trial court to decide the suit within six weeks from receipt of the writ, if not already decided. The judgment is brief, focusing on the procedural aspect of interim relief and expeditious disposal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Stay of Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - The trial court granted an injunction restraining defendants from disturbing plaintiff's possession. The appellate court dismissed defendants' appeal. The High Court, in writ petition, granted interim stay of the injunction order and directed expeditious disposal of the suit within six weeks. Held that the interim order passed by the High Court shall continue until disposal of the suit (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should stay the injunction order passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court, pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court made the rule absolute in terms of the interim order dated 17.8.2005, thereby staying the injunction order passed by the trial court. The trial court was directed to decide the suit within six weeks from receipt of the writ.
Law Points
- Interim relief
- Injunction
- Stay of proceedings
- Expedited trial
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 41
Writ Petition No.2525 of 2005
Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh for Petitioners
Nawanitdas Mathuradas Gujar and Somakant Nawanitdas Gujar
The State of Maharashtra, The Maintenance Surveyor Pune, Taluka Inspector of Land Records Pune, Deepak Ratan Kawitke, Prakash Ratan Kawitke, Ratan Pandharinath Kawitke
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order of injunction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (original defendants) sought stay of the injunction order restraining them from disturbing the plaintiff's possession over the suit property.
Filing Reason
The trial court granted an injunction against the defendants, which was upheld on appeal, prompting the defendants to file a writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed an injunction order restraining defendant nos.1 and 2 from disturbing plaintiff's possession. Misc. Civil Appeal No.44 of 2004 filed by defendants was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Baramati on 3.3.2005.
Issues
Whether the High Court should stay the injunction order passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued for stay of the injunction order.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court has the power to grant interim relief staying an injunction order pending disposal of the suit, and such interim order can be made absolute to continue until the suit is decided. The court also emphasized expeditious disposal of the suit.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial Court passed an order of injunction restraining the Defendant nos.1 and 2 from disturbing the Plaintiff's possession over the suit property.
On 17.8.2005, this Court granted Rule and interim order in terms of prayer clause (b).
The trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of writ from this Court if, it is not already decided.
Procedural History
The trial court granted an injunction. Defendants appealed to the Additional District Judge, Baramati, who dismissed the appeal on 3.3.2005. Defendants then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which on 17.8.2005 granted rule and interim stay. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 18.7.2013, making the rule absolute and directing expeditious trial.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
