Ravindra Kumar Srivastava vs Civil Judge (J.D.), Lakhimpur and another

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri T.N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri Anurag Shukia, Advocate holding brief of,. Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for O.P. No. 1.

As the controversy involved in the present case is trivial in nature so with the consent of learned Counsels for the parties present today, the present writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage. Notices to O.P. No. 2 dispensed with.

Facts in brief as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are that for redressal of his grievances, petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, registered as Regular Suit No. 690 of 2005, (Ravindra Kumar Srivastava v. Virendra Kumar Srivastava), pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Diy.), Lakhimpur.

As per submission of learned Counsel for petitioner, in the said suit an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. moved, not, decided yet on one or other pretext ''till date, hence present writ petition filed with main prayer:

A. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite party No. 1 to dispose of the temporary Injunction application of the petitioner/plaintiff.

In view of the above said facts, after hearing learned Counsel for parties present today and going through record, the interest of justice will sub serve if O.R No. 1/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Lakhimpur is directed to consider application for temporary injunction, at an early date.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to O.P. No. 1/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Lakhimpur to consider and decide application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. pending before him on the next date of listing i.e., 28.5.2011 (as informed by Counsel for petitioner), if not possible, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months thereafter after hearing Counsel for the parties on merit.

It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.