Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40444 of 2010 Petitioner :- Naresh Respondent :- Civil Judge (S.D.) Muzaffarnagar And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Nipun Singh Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, the writ petition is being finally disposed of without putting private respondents to notice, however, their right to seek variation/modification in the order, in case they feel aggrieved, is being kept reserved. Facts
giving rise to the dispute are that plaintiffpetitioners filed
Original Suit No. 1191 of 2009 for permanent and prohibitory
injunction to restrain the defendantrespondents from interfering in
their peaceful possession over the suit property; not to dispossess
them by force; not to cut away the standing trees, and not to
alienate or transfer the suit property. The suit was filed on the
allegations that the property was inherited from their deceased
uncle, who died issueless and respondent no. 2 wrongly claiming
herself to be the wife, is interfering in their peaceful possession
and alienating the suit property. An application for temporary
injunction was also moved. Trial court vide order dated 16.11.2009
did not grant any ex parte temporary injunction and only issued
notices to the defendantrespondents.
The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the defendant
respondents have put in appearance as long back as on
02.12.2009 and also filed their objections on 15.12.2009, but till
date the temporary injunction application has not been disposed of
and taking advantage of the fact, the respondents are transferring
the property by executing one sale deed after the other.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that in spite of
application moved pointing out the urgency, the court below has
failed to decide the temporary injunction application.
A perusal of the order sheet filed as Annexure 14 to the writ
petition goes to show that on most of the dates, the proceedings
have unnecessarily been adjourned and there appears to be no
reason for the trial court not to have decided the temporary
injunction matter.
Considering the facts and circumstances, writ petition stands
disposed of with the direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Muzzafarnagar to decide the temporary injunction application in
accordance with law after notice and opportunity of hearing to all
concern within a period of six weeks from the date of production of
a certified copy of this order before him.
Till the disposal of the temporary injunction application, as directed
aforesaid, the respondents are restrained from alienating,
transferring or changing the nature of suit property in any manner.
It is being clear that trial court shall decide the temporary injunction
matter on its own merit without being influenced by any of the
observations made in this order.
14.07.2010
VKS/ WP 40444/10