Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 548 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh

2012-04-04

RAJESH BINDAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rajesh Bindal J.: - Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 14.2.2007, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samrala, whereby the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed and further to the order dated 6.6.2009, passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the order dated 14.2.2007 was upheld in appeal. 2. At the out-set, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the main suit itself having been decided on 16.1.2012, the prayer in the present petition has been rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. 3. On 22.3.2012, this court passed the following order: “The present petition arises out of an application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The suit was filed on 14.6.2006. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked about the status of the suit, he submitted that after the rejection of the application for interim relief by the trial court, an appeal was filed before the learned lower Appellate Court. The file of the trial court was summoned and the same was lying with the learned Lower Appellate Court for a period of more than two years till such time the appeal was decided and only thereafter the proceedings in the suit started when the file was sent back. Let a report of the court concerned be called for along with the copies of the zimni orders passed. Adjourned to 4.4.2012.” 4. Report was received from Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 27.3.2012. 5. It is mentioned in the aforesaid report that appeal against the order dated 14.2.2007 was presented before the learned District Judge on 28.3.2007. After the same was entrusted to the court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 28.3.2007, the respondents were directed to be summoned and the record of the trial court was also called for 18.5.2007. Service of the respondents could be completed only on 4.1.2008. The record of the court below had not been received by that date. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for 8.2.2008, 11.3.2008, 10.4.2008, 25.4.2008, 9.5.2008, 30.5.2008, 18.7.2008 and 5.9.2008 for summoning the record. The record was received only on 5.9.2008. Service of the respondents could be completed only on 4.1.2008. The record of the court below had not been received by that date. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for 8.2.2008, 11.3.2008, 10.4.2008, 25.4.2008, 9.5.2008, 30.5.2008, 18.7.2008 and 5.9.2008 for summoning the record. The record was received only on 5.9.2008. The appeal was decided on 6.6.2009 and the record of the trial court remained with the lower appellate court from 5.9.2008 to 6.6.2009 and was sent back only after the decision of the appeal, though the date on which it was despatched has not been given in the report. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid report shows that on account of proceedings pending before the learned lower appellate court against the order passed by the trial court on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the suit itself could not proceed for the reason that file of the trial court was summoned and was retained in the lower appellate court. Not only this, it shows that record was summoned by the lower appellate court on the very first date of hearing when the respondents were directed to be summoned without even ensuring that their service is complete or not. The record of the trial court could not be received for eight dates of hearing. Even after service of the respondents was complete, the case was adjourned on 14 occasions for arguments, which unnecessarily delayed the proceedings in the suit. 7. It is not a case in isolation where this type of procedure is followed, which results in unnecessary delay in disposal of the suit as well. In the present case, the record was to be received from the court at Samrala, which is located at a distance of about 20 kilometers from Ludhiana, but still the proceedings in the appeal had to be adjourned on eight occasions only for awaiting the record. In some of the cases, the record even from the court, which is located in the same premises, is not received for many dates of hearing. It is not taken care of by the officer concerned as to what is the good reason for non-receipt of the record and what effective steps are required to be taken for the purpose. 8. It is not taken care of by the officer concerned as to what is the good reason for non-receipt of the record and what effective steps are required to be taken for the purpose. 8. In view of the above situation, the learned courts below are required to consider the following factors while summoning and retaining the record of the court below where certain proceedings are pending except in the cases where there is stay of further proceedings: (i) The record should be summoned only if it is required. (ii) Summoning of record even before service of the respondents is complete will only be an exercise in futility, as it may take some time in completion of service of the respondents in appeal, which though could be effected even through the counsel who is appearing in the trial court as the proceedings in the case are still pending. (iii) After the record is received, the same should not be retained in the lower appellate court, rather, should be sent back before the next date of hearing fixed before the trial court, ensuring that there is no delay in proceedings before the trial court on account of pendency of appeal against the interim order once there is no stay of proceedings. The record should not be retained in the lower appellate court beyond the date fixed before the trial court. In case, it is required, the same can be summoned again. Efforts should be made to dispose of appeal against the interim order as expeditiously as possibly after the record is received and perused by the lower appellate court. 9. A copy of the order be circulated to all the Judicial Officers in the States of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh for compliance.