JUDGMENT
R.A. Mehta, J.
1. This revision application by the original plaintiff is directed against the order dated 11-11-1983 refusing amendment of the plaint. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the learned trial Judge has observed that amendment of pleading should be allowed by the Court liberally, yet the learned trial Judge has rejected the amendment by going into the merits of the contentions raised which could have been done only after the amendment is granted. Even though there is considerable force in the reasons given by the learned trial Judge for rejecting the grounds to be raised by way of amendment, the stage for the same would be reached only after the amendment is granted. Therefore, the amendment was required to be granted.
2. The suit is against transfer of a Police Sub-Inspector, the plaintiff. By virtue of the interim order obtained in the Civil Suit in the year 1983, that interim injunction continues even after three years in 1986. Even though the rule in this revision application was made returnable on 30-11-1983, the petitioner-plaintiff has taken any care to see that revision application is brought on the board and disposed of. On the record, it appears that more than a year ago, in April 1985, a note was filed by the Government Pleader for placing the matter on board for fixing early date of hearing. However, that note had not come up for hearing. It appears that the Government Pleader had filed several notes for fixing early date of hearing as the matter was not coming up on board inspite of rule having been made returnable. On one such note, I had passed an order directing the Civil Revision Application to be placed for final hearing on 28-11-1985. It is unfortunate that inspite of that order, the matter was not placed on board and it is not heard and decided till today. In the application for fixing early date of hearing, it was stated that by virtue of the order granting stay of further proceedings of the suit, application Ex. 5 for injunction is not heard and the same is pending before the trial court and that by virtue of ad-interim injunction, the petitioner is continuing at the same place and more than two years have passed and by virtue of the stay, the transfer of the petitioner could not be implemented. In view of the fact that inordinately long time has elapsed in such a small matter, it is now utmost urgent to see that the injunction application is heard bi-parte, otherwise by virtue of an ex-parte order of injunction, transfer of Government servant would be prevented unreasonably for a long time. In fact it has so operated unreasonably for a long time.
3. In the result, revision application is allowed and the impugned order refusing the amendment of the plaint is quashed and reversed and the amendment of the plaint is granted. The trial Court is directed to see that the injunction application Ex. 5 is heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any case, on or before 25-8-1986 and to report compliance to the High Court.
4. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Writ to be sent forthwith.
From the experience in this matter, a lesson is required to be taken by all the Courts that ex-parte interim orders are not granted for indefinite time. If the trial Court or High Court had restricted the continuance of ex-parte order upto a given date, the party who had obtained interim orders would see that the matter is taken up and heard or interim order is extended for a short while. But having once obtained ad-interim order without any time limit, there is usual tendency to see that the ex-parte order continues indefinitely without bi-parte hearing. If there is any merit in the injunction application, the same would be continued after bi-parte hearing. However, absence of bi-parte hearing very often continues ex-parte order indefinitely doing lot of injustice.