Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagandeep Singh Arora vs Richa Singh And Others on 19 November, 2020
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
Civil Revision No.2527 of 2020 (O&M) 1
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2527 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.11.2020
Gagandeep Singh Arora
...... Petitioner
V/s.
Richa Singh and others
....... Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
Present: Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
***
Sanjay Kumar, J (Oral)
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, in the Civil Suit filed by him, bearing No.2505-2020, titled 'Gagandeep V/s. Richa Singh'. Thereby, the trial Court deemed it appropriate to issue notice of the suit as well as the stay application to the defendants before considering grant of an interim injunction.
Mr. Prateek Sodhi, learned counsel, would contend that necessary averments were made in Paras 13 and 14 of the plaint, detailing the overt acts of the defendants and more particularly, the first defendant, which necessitated grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. Learned counsel would contend that despite the same, the trial Court adjourned the matter to enable service of notice upon the defendants without considering the grant of an interim injunction as prayed for.
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2020 01:58:06 ::: Civil Revision No.2527 of 2020 (O&M) 2 Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the trial Court, having heard the matter, deemed it appropriate to hear the opposite party before issuing an interim injunction and accordingly directed notice of the suit as well as the stay application being issued to the defendants.
It is within the discretion of the trial Court, after hearing preliminary arguments, to decide as to whether it is a fit case for grant of an ex parte interim injunction or whether it requires hearing of both sides before a decision could be taken. However, when the trial Court, having heard the matter, deems it appropriate to hear the opposite party before considering grant of an interim injunction, brief reasons should be recorded for denying ex parte relief at that stage. When the petitioner/plaintiff made certain averments in the plaint which, according to the learned counsel, warranted grant of an ex parte interim injunction, the trial Court could not have baldly recorded that having heard the matter, it deemed it appropriate to hear the opposite party also. Therefore, the order under revision falls short of the required standard on this ground.
The revision is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, in Civil Suit No. 2505 of 2020.
The trial Court shall consider afresh the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff for ex parte ad interim relief in the said suit. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and it is for the trial Court to decide as to whether the case is a fit one for grant of such ex parte relief or whether it requires hearing of both sides before further consideration. In the latter event, the trial Court shall record brief reasons 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2020 01:58:06 ::: Civil Revision No.2527 of 2020 (O&M) 3 as to why it deems it appropriate to defer consideration of the injunction application till the other side is also heard.
The present order is passed without notice to the respondents and without affording them an opportunity of hearing as the order under revision was passed at the inception stage of the suit and as this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter, one way or the other.
No order as to costs.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
JUDGE
19.11.2020
rakesh
whether speaking/non speaking : Yes/no
whether reportable/non reportable : Yes/no
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2020 01:58:06 :::