Uttarakhand High Court, Exercising Supervisory Powers Under Article 227, Orders Expeditious Disposal of Temporary Injunction Application Pending for Several Months Under Order XXXIX CPC, Citing Lack of Justification for Further Delay

Court’s Decision:

The Uttarakhand High Court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the Civil Judge, Laksar, Haridwar, to expeditiously decide the petitioner’s application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The court directed that the application must be decided within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

Facts:

The petitioner had filed Original Suit No. 55 of 2024 before the Civil Judge, Laksar, Haridwar. As part of the suit, the petitioner sought a temporary injunction against the respondents under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), filing the relevant application, Paper No. 7C2, on March 19, 2024. The petitioner expressed concerns regarding the delay in the disposal of the application, as the respondents had already filed their objections, and the application remained undecided. The next hearing in the trial court was scheduled for November 11, 2024.

Issues:

The main issue was whether the application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC should be decided in a time-bound manner.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner contended that despite filing the application on March 19, 2024, no decision had been made. The delay was causing undue hardship, and the petitioner urged the court to direct the trial court to expedite the disposal of the application before the next scheduled hearing on November 11, 2024.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondents had already filed their objections to the application, but no further arguments from their side were detailed in the order.

Analysis of the Law:

The legal question revolved around the expeditious disposal of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. These provisions allow a party to seek a temporary injunction to prevent irreparable harm or injustice during the pendency of a suit. Under Section 151 CPC, courts have the inherent power to make orders necessary to meet the ends of justice. The petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, which provides the High Court with supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts to ensure prompt and fair administration of justice.

Precedent Analysis:

While no specific precedents were cited, the High Court’s reliance on its supervisory powers under Article 227 reflects established judicial practice where higher courts intervene to prevent undue delays in lower courts.

Court’s Reasoning:

The court noted that the petitioner’s application for temporary injunction had been pending for several months, and the respondents had already filed their objections. The court held that there was no justification for further delay in deciding the application. The High Court, therefore, deemed it appropriate to direct the trial court to expedite the matter and resolve the application within a month.

Conclusion:

The High Court, exercising its supervisory powers under Article 227, directed the trial court to decide the petitioner’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC within one month from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

Implications:

This decision reinforces the supervisory role of High Courts in ensuring that lower courts dispose of interlocutory applications without undue delay, particularly when such applications are crucial to preventing further legal or practical complications for the parties involved.

Also Read – Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds Preventive Detention: Grounds Were Clear, Procedural Safeguards Followed, and No Compelling Grounds for Interference with Detention of Alleged Terrorist Supporter