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, Vs  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