Bogum Laxmaiah vs. Smt M. Rathindari

Facts

The petitioner, Bogum Laxmaiah, a retired Joint Commissioner (GST), is the defendant in O.S. No. 1311 of 2022, a suit filed by the respondent, Smt. M. Rathindari, for permanent injunction. The suit seeks to restrain the petitioner from interfering with the respondent's possession of land in Survey No. 75/EE. The respondent filed I.A. No. 550 of 2022 seeking an ex-parte ad interim injunction, which was granted by the trial court on October 12, 2022. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit on December 5, 2022. The petitioner's grievance, as raised in this Civil Revision Petition, is that the trial court has not disposed of I.A. No. 550 of 2022 despite the filing of the counter affidavit, and has been extending the interim order.

Held

The High Court acknowledged that O.S. No. 1311 of 2022 was filed in 2022 seeking perpetual injunction, and an ad interim injunction was granted on October 12, 2022, which was extended from time to time. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner on December 5, 2022. Considering the respondent's submission that they are ready to pursue the matter, the Court held that the interests of justice would be met by directing the trial court to dispose of I.A. No. 550 of 2022 on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. The Court also clarified that the interim injunction granted on October 12, 2022, shall remain in operation until the disposal of I.A. No. 550 of 2022. The Court did not decide on the merits of the injunction application itself but focused on ensuring its timely disposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court has failed to dispose of I.A. No. 550 of 2022 in O.S. No. 1311 of 2022 in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 3A? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the trial court has been extending the interim order from time to time instead of disposing of the application, contrary to the mandate of Order XXXIX Rules 3 and 3A of the CPC. The petitioner seeks a direction to the trial court for the disposal of I.A. No. 550 of 2022. Respondent's arguments: The respondent submits that the delay in disposal is due to the court's schedule, citing specific dates when the matter was posted for further hearing or hearing but could not be taken up due to vacation. The respondent asserts readiness to pursue the matter when listed and argues that the interim injunction was granted after hearing arguments and directing the petitioner to file a counter affidavit.