# instructions contained in Court's C.L. No. 54/Xf-12 dated 16.4.1952 and C.L. No. 85/Xf

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 61/Xf-12
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1983-09-28
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 61/Xf-12
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/instructions-contained-in-court-s-c-l-no-54-xf-12-dated-16-4-1952-and-c-l-no-85-163138
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

149
discretion the issuing authority will consider the special circumstances of a
case to see whether it is necessary that the summons or notice, though
issued originally in Devanagri script, should be translated or transliterated
and published in a language or script other than Hindi. If the issuing
authority is so satisfied it shall, after recording the reason, make an order
to the effect that though the document has originally been issued in Hindi
in the Devanagri script its translation or transliteration may be published
in a language or script other than Hindi. The question of the publication of
a summons or notice otherwise than in Hindi in Devanagri script is not to
be left merely to the wishes of the party or parties concerned, but has to be
decided by issuing authority itself after considering all the aspect of the
case.
C.L. No. 61/Xf-12 dated 28th September, 1983

In view of the provisions of C.P.C. the publication of court summonses, notices
and other judicial processes in the newspapers, henceforth, shall be governed by the
provisions of sub-rule (1A) of rule 20 of order V of Civil Procedure Code. The other
instructions contained in Court's C.L. No. 54/Xf-12 dated 16.4.1952 and C.L. No. 85/Xf
-12 dated 18.8.1951, regarding publication of Government Advertisements etc. in the
newspapers and regarding distribution of notices and rates for publication of notices in
the newspapers, shall continue to remain in force as before.
C.L. No. 29/Xe-5(SC) dated 29th April, 1983 and
C.L. No. 1/Xe -5(SC) dated 7th January, 1985

All notices, summonses etc. shall invariably be issued or sent for publication in
newspaper in the forms as given in Hindi edition of Civil Procedure Code, Criminal
Procedure Code etc. published by the Government and no lapse should recur in this
regard otherwise serious view will be taken by the Court in the matter.
(4)
STAY AND INJUNCTION ORDERS
C.L. No. 68 dated 25th July, 1957

An order staying proceeding under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is a
judicial order and should be passed only after the court has been satisfied that the matter
in issue is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit and that the
previously instituted suit is still pending. If the previously instituted suit has been
disposed of and only an appeal or revision is pending the court must hold that it is still
pending within the meaning of section 10 before it can stay the proceedings. The finding
that the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit
should not be given without legal evidence, and certainly not on vague or sweeping
information. If the suit itself is pending, copies of the pleadings should be require to be
filed, and if an appeal or revision is pending, copies of the judgment of the trial court and
of the memorandum of appeal or of the application for revision should be required. The
court should be in possession of all the necessary information about the previously
instituted suit, e.g., its number and year and names of the parties and the court where it is
said to be pending. After the proceedings have been stayed, periodical enquiries should
150
make whether the previously instituted suit is still pending. They should be made from
the court itself where it is said to be pending.

The provisions of section 10 are mandatory and proceedings in the subsequent
suit must be stayed if the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a
previously instituted suit. The two suits cannot, and should not be amalgamated or tried
together.

Proceeding should be stayed in exercise of inherent powers only on the court
being satisfied that it is necessary to stay them in the interest of justice or to prevent the
abuse of process of court.
G.L. No. 3323/267 dated 25th July, 1925 and
C.L. No. 69/VIII-d-95 dated 11th May, 1971
The attention of District Judges is drawn to the remarks of the Civil Justices
Committee regarding the issue of interlocutory injunctions. The committee point out that
much delay in justice is occasioned by interlocutory orders for stay of proceedings and
stay of execution, by interlocutory injunctions and by the holding up of proceeding
pending application in revision. They add that interlocutory injunctions are throughout
India, granted much too freely and without sufficient care to impose terms, and that this
particularly applies to the granting of such injunctions ex parte. Order XXXIX, rule 3 of
the Code of Civil Procedure makes it compulsory in all cases to issue notice to the
opposite-party before granting a temporary injunction except where the object of granting
the injunction would be defeated by the delay caused by issuing notice. The Committee
fined that ex parte injunction are frequently issued where the dispute between the parties
has been pending for months. Such cases clearly do not come within the exception. The
issue of an ex parte injunction against a defendant in possession of property operates to
give the plaintiff an unfair advantage. Where an injunction is granted without notice, it
should be granted only for the minimum period necessary to enable the opposite party to
come before the court and put forward his case. A week, or at most a fortnight, should
ordinarily be sufficient for this purpose. If the defendant evades service of the notice
knowing that the temporary injunction has expired, it will always be possible for the
court to extend it. The court, however, agrees with the Committee that the issue of an
interlocutory injunction without notice is to be regarded as an exception and should only
be allowed where the plaintiff establishes in a convincing manner that by reasonable
diligence on his part he could have avoided the necessity of applying behind the back of
the defendant. Where there has been unnecessary delay on the part of the plaintiff in
making his application, an injunction should never be granted ex part e.
Attention is also invited to the following remarks of the Committee:
―Again we understand that in recent times the ordinary operations of local
bodies are being constantly interfered with by ex parte injunctions at the
suits of plaintiffs whose grievance is in no way commensurable with the
damage which an interlocutory injunction is bound to do. There can be no
greater encouragement to blackmailing and malicious suits. The serious
interruption of public business in the interest of a protagonist in a local
quarrel is by no means unknown.‖