# the court itself where it is said to be pending

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 69/VIII-d-95
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1925-07-25
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 69/VIII-d-95
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-court-itself-where-it-is-said-to-be-pending-163139
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

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.‖
151
G.L. No. 33 dated 12 May, 1955

The granting of an interim injunction, whether ex parte or not is a judicial matter.
But where the Government or a local body have appointed a standing counsel, the courts
may consider the desirability of disposing of the application the same day or within, say a
couple of days after giving notice to the standing counsel.
C.L. No. 51/VIId-95 dated 5th May, 1972

Instruction issued by the Court in its C.L. No. 69 dated 11th May, 1971 and G.L.
No. 3323/27, dated 25th July, 1925, regarding grant of injunction should be strictly
followed and it should specially be borne in mind that injunction should not be granted in
defective cases or in cases in which no notice under section 80 C.P.C. has been given.
C.L. No. 154/VII d-95 dated 10th October, 1977 and
C.L. No. 184/VII d-95 dated 9th December, 1977

While dealing with appeals from orders granting or refusing temporary
injunctions, if it is found that the trial judges have exercised their discretion arbitrarily or
frivolously in granting or refusing temporary injunctions, the same may be brought to the
notice of the respective Administrative Judge within a month from the disposal of such
appeals.
C.L. No. 144/VIII g-38 Admn. ̳G' dated 19 December, 1979
The Presiding Officers should arrange cases in their diary in such a way that
priority may be given to those cases in which stay orders or injunctions have been issued
by their own courts.
C.L. 86/VIId-98-Admn. (G) dated 24th November, 1984
All the Presiding Officers should strictly comply with the provisions of Rule 1(3)
and Rule 5(3)(c) of the Order XLI and Rule 8(h) of the Order XXVII C.P.C. while
deciding suits relating to money matters, and while granting stay of execution of an
appealable decree and depositing of security etc., in such suits.
C.L. No. 104/IVh-36 dated 16th June, 1976

Making of vague orders on temporary injunction such as saying that the status
quo be maintained, should be avoided. Temporary injunction orders should be express
and specific to the utmost possible extent. The order for interim injunction even where
ex-parte, should ordinarily contain brief indication of the rationale for the order, so as to
ensure that there has been an application of mind. Speaking order should not normally be
passed where the injunction is refused. Security should invariably be taken even while
giving an ex-parte order.

Ex- parte interim injunction should be made time bound. Final order should be
passed within a month and extension, if necessary should not be for more than a fortnight
with the consent of the opposite party.
(i)
Grant or interim injunction both ex-parte as well as final by the Subordinate
Courts.
C.L. No. 50/VIId-10/Admn.(G-2), dated September 6, 1993