Allahabad High Court
Anjay Kumar Omar vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 31 January, 2023
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 37 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 814 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anjay Kumar Omar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete respondent no.1 from the array of the parties and re-number the remaining respondents.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite service upon the defendants-respondents in the suit, they have deliberately avoided to appear as they knew very well that they had nothing to do with the property in question and were just interfering with the on going construction activity of the petitioner over the suit property. The temporary injunction was granted by the trial court and when the petitioner moved an application for getting the temporary injunction order implemented, the trial court refused to allow that application on the ground that 6-C application was still not disposed of and therefore to get the interim relief order enforced at this stage would be in the teeth of the judgment of Telangana High Court in the case of M/s Senthan Properties vs. M/S S.V.S. Infra Services Private Ltd. reported in AIR 2021 Telangana 107.
This Court fails to understand as to how the trial court got influenced by the judgment passed in the said case where the certain real state parties were litigating the matter. Even otherwise, the direction issued by the Telangana High Court only binds the trial court to have a conscious steps while ensuring the implementation of a temporary injunction order.
Looking to the relevant provisions as contained under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, I find that the legislature has not made any distinction between the temporary injunction order pending 6-C application or a final temporary injunction order disposing of 6-C application. All that has been provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A is that once the injunction has been granted to a party then it is the duty of the court to ensure that it is not breached. It is the disobedience to the order of temporary injunction which has been taken care of.
Therefore, in my considered view there is no bar for the trial court in proceeding to ensure that the temporary injunction order does not get breached. It would be another thing that the opposite party appears in the suit and files objection and then the court of course would be disposing of the pending 6-C application in the first instance.
In view of the above, the order passed by the trial court dated 18.11.2022 is hereby set aside. The application bearing paper no.29-C stands restored. The court concerned shall proceed to consider that application as an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition stands allowed with no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 31.1.2023 Deepika