Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1520 (ALL)

Ashok Pradhan v. Nathan Singh

2010-05-10

S.C.AGARWAL, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2010
JUDGMENT : Satya Poot Mehrotra and S.C. Agarwal, JJ. – The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.4.2010 whereby an Injunction Application No.8 Ga2 filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant in Suit No.575 of 2009 has been rejected. 2. It appears that the plaintiff-appellant has filed the aforesaid Suit No.575 of 2009 against the defendants-respondents, inter-alia, praying for grant of decree of permanent injunction as against the defendant-respondent nos. 1 to 3 directing the said respondents to restrain from interfering in the peaceful possession and business of the plaintiff-appellant in the shop in question. Copy of the Plaint has been filed as part of Annexure 1 to the Affidavit accompanying the Stay Application. 3. An Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant in the said Suit. Copy of the said Application has been filed as part of Annexure 1 to the Affidavit accompanying the Stay Application. 4. An ex-parte injunction order dated 26.10.2009 was passed by the Trial Court, inter-alia, directing the defendant-respondent nos.1 to 3 to restrain from interfering in the business of the plaintiff-appellant in the shop in question. Copy of the said order dated 26.10.2009 has been filed as Annexure 3 to the Affidavit accompanying the Stay Application. 5. Written Statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant-respondent nos.1 to 3 in the said Suit. Copy of the Written Statement has been filed as Annexure 4 to the Affidavit accompanying the Stay Application. 6. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 30.4.2010, the said Injunction Application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed by the Trial Court. 7. Against the said order dated 30.4.2010, the present Appeal has been filed. 8. Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant-respondent nos. 1 to 4. 9. We have heard Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record. 10. Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent nos. 1 to 4. 9. We have heard Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent nos. 1 to 4, and perused the record. 10. Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant as well as Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent nos. 1 to 4 have stated that the present Appeal may be disposed of without going into the merits thereof by directing the Trial Court to decide the aforesaid Suit within a particular period and further directing for maintenance of Status-quo during the pendency of the said Suit. 11. In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are disposing of the present Appeal, without going into the merits thereof, with the following directions : (i). Both the sides will appear before the Trial Court on 24.5.2010 along with certified copy of this order. (ii). The Trial Court will proceed to decide the Suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (iii). Both the parties will cooperate in the early disposal of the Suit and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment. (iv). Till 31.01.2011 or till the disposal of the Suit, whichever is earlier, the parties will maintain Status-quo as of date in regard to the shop in question and the business run therein. 12. The Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Appeal Disposed Off.