Application Under Order 39

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 7 OF THE C. P. C.

IN THE COURT OF....................


Suit No..................... of 19........................................
VINOD KUMAR Plaintiff
versus
1- DIRECTOR , AGRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTEE
2- SECTARY, KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI ANAJ , SRI
GANGANAGAR Defendant
The applicant most respectfully submits as under: —
1. That the present suit has been instituted by the
plaintiff/applicant against the defendant for recovery of
immovable property.
2. That on an application moved by applicant under Order 38,
Rule 5 C. P. C. the aforesaid movables have been attached and
produced in the court on .................... (date),
3. That the movables forming the subject-matter of the suit
being valuable, it is expedient in the ends of justice that the
said movables be detained and preserved by this Hon’ble court.
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the movables
specified in Annexure A annexed to this application be ordered
to be detained and preserved.
It is prayed accordingly.
Applicant Through Advocate
Place:....................
Dated:....................
CASE LAW
Order 39, Rules 6 to 10. INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS — TRIAL
COURT’S ABSOLUTE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE MATTER—
OBSERVATIONS OF SUPERIOR COURT ONLY FOR A LIMITED
PURPOSE.
It is now fairly well known that any observations made in the
course of interlocutory proceedings are for limited purpose of
those proceedings and the trial court is always free and in fact
is expected to decide the matter uninfluenced by any
observations regarding appreciation of evidence etc., made by
the revisional court for the limited purpose of those
proceedings. The trial court will decide the matter in
accordance with law in the light of its own assessment1.
PROVISO—
WHEN ORDER OF INJUNCTION IS ILLEGAL
Where temporary injunction is granted without notice to
opposite party but reasons for court’s opinion that delay would
defeat the object of injunction if it were not given, the order of
injunction is illegal2.
EX PARTE INJUNCTION TO PLAINTIFF PARTNERS RESTRAINING
DEFENDANT PARTNERS WHEN CAN BE GRANTED.
While it is true that being partners the appellant’s right to
participate in the business of the plaintiff and to have access to
the place of business and the account books cannot be denied,
it is equally true that they cannot be permitted to carry hostile
activities which may adversely affect the partnership business
itself and may bring it to a stand still. The trial court’s step to
prevent the appellants from interfering with the day to day
management and working of the partnership, cannot be said
that the formation of opinion by trial court to proceed in terms
of Rule 3 and its proviso to pass an ex parte temporary
injunction violates any of those provisions and calls for any
interference3.
1. Rajbir Singh v. Rajbir Singh and another, 1986 (Supp. ) S. C. C.
736.
2. Amyia Prasad v. Bejoy Krishna Chakraborty, A. I. R. 1981 Cal.
351.
3. Bipin Chandra v. M/s. Purshottam Bhai Bhori Bhai & Co., A. I.
R. 1984 M. P.

You might also like