AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 206 wordsManoj K. Tiwari, J
Petitioner filed a suit for declaration before Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital. Along with the suit, petitioner has also filed temporary injunction application. Learned trial court issued notices on the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner fixing 08.10.2021 for disposal. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 17.09.2021.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that having regard to the facts of the case, learned trial court ought to have granted ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.
Since learned trial court acted inconsonance with the provision contained in Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C., therefore, any interference with the order passed by learned trial court would be unwarranted.
Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of his client that petitioner shall take all necessary steps for affecting service upon respondents (defendants in the suit) on or before the next date fixed.
Having regard to the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a request to learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital to consider petitioner's temporary injunction application on the next date fixed i.e. 08.10.2021., provided all the defendants are served.