Allahabad High Court
Dharam Raj vs District Snd Session Judge, Jaunpur And ... on 7 February, 2020
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1083 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dharam Raj Respondent :- District Snd Session Judge, Jaunpur And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav,Ravindra Nath Yadav Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The only prayer made by Shri Ravindra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application for temporary injunction registered as application no.6C in Original Suit No.624 of 2017 (Dharam Raj Vs. Shakila), pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahganj, Jaunpur, be decided within a stipulated period of time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has called attention to the order passed by the learned trial court on 23.10.2018, wherein it was found that the service upon the defendants is complete. It is difficult to understand why the decision on the application for temporary injunction is being inordinately delayed.
I see merit in the submission of Shri Ravindra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner that inordinate delay in deciding an application for interim injunction would defeat its very purpose. The courts have to take all measures to decide the applications for interim injunction on priority and expeditiously, in accordance with law.
In such view of the matter, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahganj, Jaunpur, is directed to decide the application for temporary injunction, registered as application no.6C in Original Suit No.624 of 2017 (Dharam Raj Vs. Shakila), in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 Dhananjai