The dispute is already pending before a trial court, stated the petitioner Lumax.
Justice Jyoti Singh, while allowing the petition on Monday, clarified that the court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall decide the applications independent of any observations or narrative of facts given in the present order, which are limited to the disposal of the present petition.
Further, it directed the trial court to take up the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for ex parte ad interim injunction as well as an application for appointment of Local Commissioner on Tuesday.
The petition contended that the suit was listed on various dates before the trial Court where, for one reason or the other, while summons was issued, applications were filed, however, the appointment of the Local Commissioner was not being heard.
It is averred that thereafter, the matter was listed 'for orders' on the multiple pending applications but the same was not passed and the trial court again issued summons and notice in the applications.
In the order, the court stated that the affidavit filed by petitioners indicates that the respondent is unserved to date, which is apparently for the reason that despite the order of the trial court dated April 30, petitioners have not taken any steps as directed.
While this court deprecates the non-compliance of the court order by the petitioners in not taking steps to serve the respondent, however, considering the fact that several dates have passed and to date, for one reason or the other, respondent is unserved, this court deems it fit to request the learned trial court to hear the two applications before the summons in the suit and notice in the applications are served on the respondent, it read.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)