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
8 paragraphs · 291 wordsAlok Kumar Verma, J
An Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the proposed revisionist-plaintiff in Original Suit No.178 of 2024. The said Application is pending before the trial court. The proposed Civil Revision has been filed on the ground that the trial court has not passed any order on the Application (Application No.21C2), filed by the revisionist-plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for temporary injunction.
A Miscellaneous Application No.5 of 2024, filed by the proposed revisionist-plaintiff, is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate submitted that the said Application (Miscellaneous Application No.5 of 2024) has been filed by the revisionist-plaintiff requesting to direct the trial court to decide his application 6C2, filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as expeditiously as possible, if possible on the next date of hearing, i.e. 22.07.2024.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate contended that the revisionist-plaintiff has also filed an amendment application to amend the plaint, which is pending before the trial court.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate has submitted that the trial court may be directed to decide the revisionist-plaintiff’s Application 6C2 in the light of the original plaint.
With the consent of both the parties, the present Revision is decided at the admission stage by directing the Trial Court to decide the Application 6C2, filed by the revisionist-plaintiff, as expeditiously as possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.