Full Text
Translation output
A-58
% 13.07.2011
Present: Petitioner in person.
+ CM(M) No. 784/2011 & CM Nos. 12504-05/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
23.03.2011 whereby the apphcation filed by the apphcant/defendant No. 3 under Order 14 Rule 2 (2) ofthe Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been dismissed. By way of this application, the apphcant had sought the case to be decided on the three preliminary issues proposed by him and as detailed in the last paragraph of his application (page 32 of the paper book). Today before this Court the apphcant who is appearing in person states that he is pressing his prayer only on preliminary issue No. 2 which reads as under:-
"Whether the present suit is barred under the law of injunction?"
His contention is that the impugned order suffers from an illegality as the decision on this preliminary issue is not a mixed question of law and facts as has been held in the impugned order.
Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant including the present apphcant. The prayer is that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the construction work of the plaintiff as has been detailed in the plaint; the cause of action has
2011:DHC:7444 been detailed in para 16 of the plaint. The impugned order had rightly noted that the contention raised by the apphcant about the maintainability ofthe suit is a mixed question oflaw and facts and cannot be taken up as a preliminary issue. No merit in the petition.
Dismissed.
JULY 13, 2011 a
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
- m is'krWii
^idCl err, 2011:DHC:7444
% 13.07.2011
Present: Petitioner in person.
+ CM(M) No. 784/2011 & CM Nos. 12504-05/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
23.03.2011 whereby the apphcation filed by the apphcant/defendant No. 3 under Order 14 Rule 2 (2) ofthe Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been dismissed. By way of this application, the apphcant had sought the case to be decided on the three preliminary issues proposed by him and as detailed in the last paragraph of his application (page 32 of the paper book). Today before this Court the apphcant who is appearing in person states that he is pressing his prayer only on preliminary issue No. 2 which reads as under:-
"Whether the present suit is barred under the law of injunction?"
His contention is that the impugned order suffers from an illegality as the decision on this preliminary issue is not a mixed question of law and facts as has been held in the impugned order.
Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant including the present apphcant. The prayer is that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the construction work of the plaintiff as has been detailed in the plaint; the cause of action has
2011:DHC:7444 been detailed in para 16 of the plaint. The impugned order had rightly noted that the contention raised by the apphcant about the maintainability ofthe suit is a mixed question oflaw and facts and cannot be taken up as a preliminary issue. No merit in the petition.
Dismissed.
JULY 13, 2011 a
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
- m is'krWii
^idCl err, 2011:DHC:7444
JUDGMENT