Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(ah) It is only after filing an application for leave to sue under Clause 12 and obtaining the leave on 24.11.2010, that the applicant herein moved the Fast Track Court with an application in I.A.No.148 of 2010 under Order XXIII, Rule 1(3), CPC for leave to withdraw the first suit with liberty to file the next suit. This application was actually filed on 25.11.2010 after obtaining leave to institute the second suit;
(ai) When the application for leave to withdraw the first suit with liberty was actually pending before the Fast Track Court, the applicant moved an application for injunction in the second suit C.S.No.970 of 2010. In that application for injunction O.A.No.1239 of 2010, a learned Judge of this Court granted an injunction restraining the Bank, the Recovery Officer and the auction purchaser from confirming the sale. This order was passed on 02.12.2010. But, by then, the sale had already been confirmed on 11.11.2010;
(aj) It is only after the applicant obtained an interim injunction in the second suit C.S.No.970 of 2010 on 02.12.2010, that his application before the Fast Track Court I.A.No.148 of 2010 for withdrawal of the first suit with liberty was allowed. It was actually allowed on 07.12.2010;
(ak) Unfortunately, the Bank did not file a counter and bring these facts to my notice, but merely sought time for filing a counter, when the application for injunction in the second suit O.A.No.1239 of 2010 in C.S.No.970 of 2010 came up before me about two years ago on 12.01.2011. Therefore, I ordered the injunction to continue while granting time to the Bank to file a counter. It appears that the said application is still pending and the said interim order is still in force. However, it should be pointed out that the injunction granted therein is of no avail, in view of the fact that even before 02.12.2010, the date on which injunction was granted, the sale had been confirmed in favour of the fourth respondent on 11.11.2010 itself;