Sunday, 18 September 2016

Whether application for temporary injunction can be kept pending for deciding application for contempt/breach of injunction?

Whether main application of temporary injunction can be
kept pending and application for contempt/breach of injunction
under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC can be taken up in precedence?

Held : - By referring the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Quantum Securities Pvt.Ltd. VS. New Delhi Television Ltd.,
Reported in (2015) 10 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court
held that, it would not be appropriate that in such case, the
temporary injunction application is kept pending particularly when
there is statutory mandate to decide such an application within a
period of 30 days U/o.XXXIX Rule 3-A of C.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.108 of 2016
Gurudas Alavani, 
Versus
Mahajany of the temple of
Ramnatha, Ramnathi, Bandora,

CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.
DATE :- 23rd JUNE, 2016.
Citation: 2016 SCC On Line Bom 3980 



Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The
learned Counsel for the respondent waives service.
Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner is the original defendant, who

is challenging the order dated 15/01/2016 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ponda in
Regular Civil Suit No.10/2015/C. By the impugned
order, application Exh.18 filed by the respondent/
plaintiff has been granted. The net result is that the
Trial Court has decided to take up application for
breach of injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the
Code of Civil Procedure, for hearing before hearing the
application for Temporary Injunction. It appears that
while doing so, the learned Trial Court has placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in Civil
Revision Application No.183/1991 (Francisco Xavier
Fernandes and another Vs. Anthony Fernandes) dated
30/09/1991.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Quantum Securities Pvt. Ltd and others Vs.
New Delhi Television Ltd., reported in (2015)10 SCC
602, in order to submit that in such a case, it is not
appropriate that the main application is kept pending
and application for contempt / breach of injunction, is
taken up in precedence.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondent, in all

fairness, does not dispute this position.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Quantum Securities
Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has, inter alia, held that it would
not be appropriate that in such cases, the Temporary
Injunction application is kept pending, particularly
when there is a statutory mandate to decide such an
application within a period of 30 days under Order
XXXIX, Rule 3A of C.P.C.
6. In such circumstances and in view of the
concession on behalf of the respondent, the petition is
allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The
application Exh.18 is hereby dismissed. The learned
Trial Court shall decide the application for Temporary
Injunction as expeditiously as possible, in accordance
with law.
7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms,
with no order as to costs.
8. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of the
order.

C. V. BHADANG, J.

Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment