Bombay High Court at Goa Directs Expedited Trial in State Forest Dispute — Appeal Disposed with Directions to Trial Court to Dispose Suit Within One Week. Court Held That Instead of Adjudicating Interim Matter at Belated Stage, Trial Should Be Expedited in Interest of Both Parties.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 89
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The State of Goa filed an appeal against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, partly allowing the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2001. The appeal was pending since 2002. The High Court noted that the record and proceedings (R&P) were with the High Court, preventing the trial court from proceeding with the suit. Instead of adjudicating the interim matter at a belated stage, the court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing and dispose of the suit within one week from receipt of the writ. The R&P was ordered to be transmitted back to the trial court. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC - Expedited Trial - Appeal against interim order pending since 2002 - Court held that instead of adjudicating the interim matter at a belated stage, it would be in the interest of both parties to direct the trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit within one week - Appeal disposed of with no order as to costs (Paras 3-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeal against an interim order under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC should be adjudicated at a belated stage or the trial should be expedited.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is disposed of with directions to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem to expedite the hearing of the trial and dispose it of within one week from the date of receipt of the writ. The R&P shall be immediately transmitted to the trial court. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Expedited trial
  • interim order
  • disposal of appeal with directions
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 81

Appeal from Order No. 62 of 2002

2006-11-17

P.V. Kakade, J.

Shri M.D. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants; Shri V.B. Nadkarni, Sr. Advocate with Shri Y.V. Nadkarni, Advocate for the Respondent – absent

State of Goa through Secretary (Forests), The Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests, Director of Industries & Mines

Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal through his duly constituted attorney Devidas Sadanand Kuchodkar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against an order partly allowing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC in a civil suit.

Remedy Sought

The State of Goa sought to challenge the interim order passed by the trial court.

Filing Reason

The State appealed against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, partly allowing the plaintiff's application for interim injunction.

Previous Decisions

The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem partly allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2001.

Issues

Whether the appeal against an interim order should be adjudicated at a belated stage or the trial should be expedited.

Submissions/Arguments

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State was heard. None appeared for the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

Instead of adjudicating an interim matter at a belated stage, it is in the interest of both parties to direct the trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Judgment Excerpts

Instead of adjudicating the interim matter at this belated stage, it would be in the interest of both the parties to dispose of the appeal with certain directions to the trial court. the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem is directed to expedite the hearing of the trial as it involves the State, so as to dispose it of within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.

Procedural History

The State of Goa filed an appeal (Appeal from Order No. 62 of 2002) against an order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem, partly allowing an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC in Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2001. The appeal was pending since 2002. The High Court heard the appeal on 17th November 2006 and disposed it of with directions to expedite the trial.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 39, Rules 1 & 2
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court at Goa Directs Expedited Trial in State Forest Dispute — Appeal Disposed with Directions to Trial Court to Dispose Suit Within One Week. Court Held That Instead of Adjudicating Interim Matter at Belated Stage, Trial Should Be Expe...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Partially Allows Petition Against Interim Maintenance Award in Family Dispute — Reduces Maintenance for Wife and Child Based on Income and Needs. The court assessed the husband's income from multiple sources and considered the wif...