Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 73 (MEG)

Sabyasachi Dutt v. HDFC Bank Limited

2015-06-05

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. AS Siddiqui, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S Guhathakurata, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Shillong dated 25.05.2015 passed in FAO Case No.5 (H) 2015. 3. The petitioner filed a Title Suit i.e. T.S. No.3 (H) 2015 against the present respondent in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Shillong for declaration to the effect that the Auto Loan Agreement bearing No.23792008 dated 26.02.2014 entered into and executed between the petitioner (plaintiff) and the respondent (defendant) at Shillong is void ab initio and inoperative in the eye of law as same is against the public policy. That said suit i.e. T.S. No.3 (H) 2015 was accompanied with an application for temporary injunction i.e. Misc. Case No.9 (H) 2015. In that Misc. Case No.9 (H) 2015, the present petitioner (plaintiff) prayed for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The trial court i.e. Assistant District Judge, Shillong vide order dated 24.04.2015 declined to pass ex-parte temporary injunction order. However, the learned trial court in that order decided to issue notice to the opposite party for giving an opportunity of hearing in the injunction matter. The copy of the said order of the learned trial court dated 24.04.2015 is annexed to the present revision petition; and on perusal, it is clear that the prayer for temporary injunction has not yet rejected by the learned trial court. 4. Against the said order of the learned trial court dated 24.04.2015 passed in Misc. Case No.9 (H) 2015, the present petitioner preferred an appeal being FAO Case No. 5 (H) 2015 in the court of the District Judge, Shillong. The District Judge, Shillong vide impugned order dated 25.05.2015 disposed of the said appeal i.e. FAO Case No. 5 (H) 2015 with the direction that since the trial court has not yet rejected the application for temporary injunction of the appellant (present petitioner), the appellant (present petitioner) may approach the trial court, if so advised, and the trial court shall dispose of the application for temporary injunction after hearing both the parties. The learned first appellate court also made an observation in the impugned order dated 25.05.2015 that the trial court shall dispose of the matter as early as possible. The learned first appellate court also made an observation in the impugned order dated 25.05.2015 that the trial court shall dispose of the matter as early as possible. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order of the learned first appellate court dated 24.04.2015, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present revision petition. 5. The power of revisional jurisdiction is circumscribed under Section 115 of the CPC. This Court can exercise the power of revisional jurisdiction if satisfied that the court below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 25.05.2015 is not the order in true sense. However, the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has not impressed this Court inasmuch as the learned first appellate court had given reason for not entertaining the appeal. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned first appellate court had passed the impugned order dated 25.05.2015 in exercise of the jurisdiction vested on her by law. 6. Mr. AS Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said application for injunction is required to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible because of the urgency involves in the application for temporary injunction. In support of his submission, Mr. AS Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to the pleadings of the petitioner in the said T.S. No.3 (H) 2015 and also the relief sought for in the said suit i.e. T.S. No.3 (H) 2015. 7. Taking into consideration of the submission of Mr. AS Siddiuqi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the pleadings of the petitioner in the said T.S. No.3 (H) 2015, this Court is of the considered view that the said application for temporary injunction is required to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the said application for temporary injunction as expeditiously as possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. 8. With the above observations and directions, this revision petition stands disposed of.