Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the result, this application fails and accordingly it is dismissed and the interim Order of injunction passed by this Court against the respondent in the above application on 15.4.1981 is hereby vacated. There will be no order of costs under the circumstances.

7. After the said order was passed, the petitioner took possession of the property on 4.11.1991. Thereafter, the second respondent filed E.A. Nos. 5103 to 5105 of 1991 in E.P. No. 831 of 1981. In the first of the applications, he prayed for an order for not recording the seizure of the property; in the second application, he prayed for re-delivery of the property; in the third application, he prayed for an interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein from alienating or encumbering or putting up any construction in the property seized The expression used by the second respondent in the said petitions was 'seizure' and not 'delivery'.

13. It is not necessary to point out that the learned Judge has not understood the judgment of the Bombay High Court Ganga Bai v. Ratankumar , correctly. What has been held by the Bombay High Court is that if there is a mistake by the Court in passing an order, such mistake can be corrected by the same Court and it has got inherent powers to do so. That will have no application to the facts of this case as there is no mistake at all in passing the orders dated 27.2.1992. As regards two of the applications, they were dismissed for default and as regards the application for injunction, it was found to be not maintainable. As regards the applications which were dismissed for default, it could have been open to the second respondent to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause to be absent from the court on that day and the order of dismissal for default could be set aside. But that has not been done; nor has the learned Judge found that the second respondent has sufficient cause to be absent from Court. As regards the application for injunction, there is an order that the application was not maintainable. It is not known, how on earth the second respondent can ask for the restoration of that application, when there was an order that the application was not maintainable. If at all the secoria respondent wanted to attack that order on the application for injunction, he should have approached the appellate or revisional forum and he should not have approached the same court by filing an application for restoration of that application.