Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 533 (RAJ)

Ghanshyam Gupta v. Umesh Chand Sharma

2012-02-28

BELA N.TRIVEDI

body2012
ORDER : 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard at the admission stage. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant No.4 Under Order 43 Rule 1(r) Civil Procedure Code challenging the order dated 21.8.09 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in T.I. Application No. 4/08 whereby the trial court has directed the parties to maintain the status-quo with regard to the property in question and also not to transfer or create charge in favour of third party in respect of the suit property. 3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said order was passed without hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4, inasmuch as when the matter was called out in the first session, the learned associate counsel of the counsel for the appellant had requested the court to hear the matter after the lunch session, which request was accepted by the court. According to the learned counsel, however at about 2.00 p.m. when the counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4 appeared before the court. He was informed that the matter was already decided by the court. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the trial court had passed the order which is cryptic nature, without considering the merits of the case and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 4. However the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have jointly submitted that the appellant had submitted an application seeking review of the impugned order on the same day and the said application is pending before the trial court. The learned counsels also submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the trial court had passed the order directing the parties to maintain status-quo which order being just and proper, this court should not interfere with the same. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the contents of the appeal memo, it clearly transpires that the trial court had passed the impugned order without hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the contents of the appeal memo, it clearly transpires that the trial court had passed the impugned order without hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.4. It is also not disputed that learned counsel for the appellant had on the very day submitted an application seeking review of the impugned order as he was not heard by the trial court. If the request for taking up the matter in the post lunch session was accepted by the trial court, it ought not to have passed the order in a pre-lunch session and that too without hearing the learned counsel for the defendant No.4. There is also substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has passed the impugned order without considering the merits of the application of the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the trial court having been passed without hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and without assigning any reasons, the same deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the T.I. Application afresh in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing to the learned counsels for the parties. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed.