High Court

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Singh Yadav, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2. The Vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. When the matter was entertained, the Court had noticed serious infractions alleged against the manner of decision making, which were reflected in the order dated 08.05.2025, which is quoted below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the plaintiff had filed a Suit No.614 of 2024, in which an application C-6 was also filed seeking injunction. The application was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2024. Without there being any challenge to the said order, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 CPC and without serving a copy of the said application on the defendant and without there being any specific date fixed for hearing and without hearing the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 26.07.2024.

3. Prima facie, the order dated 26.07.2024, which is impugned does not even indicate that the defendant was heard and no reason has been recorded as to why the defendant was not heard. Prima facie, the manner of exercise of powers does not appear to be correct while deciding the application under Section 151 of the CPC, the injunction application has been re-decided.

4. In view thereof, the District Judge, Lucknow is directed to send a report after perusing the file as to the manner in which, the order dated 26.07.2024 came to be passed without even serving a copy of the application on the defendant and without affording any opportunity of the hearing. The District Judge would be entitled to take the comment of the Civil Judge concerned.

5. The report shall be sent to this Court within three days.

6. Put up this matter in the list of fresh cases on 15th May, 2025.

7. The Senior Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Judge, Lucknow for compliance forthwith."

3. In pursuance to the said direction, a report was sent by the District Judge, which was considered on 15.05.2025 and the Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the report. The said order is quoted below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the report dated 15.05.2025 which has been sent by the District Judge, Lucknow in pursuance to the directions given by this Court on 08.05.2025.

2. The report states that the Presiding Officer who had passed the order is at child care leave and the report has been sent by the Officer In-Charge of the Court at present.

3. Prima-facie, from perusal of the record and the report, the same does not inspire confidence, as such, the District Judge, Lucknow is directed to transmit the original record of the file to this Court by the next date of listing.

4. Senior Registrar shall ensure that the entire file in original is submitted for perusal of this Court on the next date of listing.

5. List on 22.05.2025, as fresh."

4. In pursuance to the order passed on 15.05.2025, the original record has been produced in seal cover before this Court today. What transpires from the perusal of the report is that after the injunction application was disposed off on merits, an application seems to be filed by the respondent no.2 under Section 151 of C.P.C. which was number as Application No.C- 25. On the said application, an order was passed on 02.07.2024 inviting objections. The matter was thereafter fixed on 08.07.2024. On 08.07.2024, the matter was adjourned to 16.07.2024 as the lawyers were on strike and on 16.07.2024, it was directed that the matter be listed on 26.07.2024. On 26.07.2024, an order came to be passed allowing the injunction application no.C-25.

5. On perusal of the entire order-sheet, it does not transpire that the copy of the Application No.C25 under Section 151 was ever served upon the petitioner or was received by his counsel. There is no order on record directing the applicant of Application No.C-25 to serve a copy of the application to the petitioner.

6. A perusal of the application under Section 151 reveals that according to the applicant, it was alleged that the order dated 30.05.2024, rejecting the injunction application, was on account of typographical errors and a request was made to modify the order dated 30.05.2024 failing which the applicant would suffer irreparable hardship.

7. From the entire records nothing can be deciphered that the copy has ever been served upon the petitioner. The report earlier submitted in terms of the directions through the District Judge, Lucknow by the In-charge Civil Judge (Junior Division), North, Lucknow, is also prima facie incorrect. Insofar as in para 5 of the said report, it has been observed that the defendants were present and had received a copy of the Application No.C-25 whereas no material exists to demonstrate that on 16.07.2024, the copy of the Application No.C-25 was ever served.

8. In any case of the matter, the Application No.C-25 was not allowed on the ground that there appears to be a typographical error in the earlier order dated 30.05.2024 which needs to be rectified. Instead of considering, the same the Civil Judge concerned proceeded to decide the injunction application afresh after recording that a prima facie case and balance of convenience and irreparable hardship was made out. Thus it is clear that the entire order has been passed on Application No.C- 25 without even giving any notice to the plaintiff and was clearly beyond the scope of prayer made before the court concerned in the Application No.C-25. In view thereof, the manner of decision making cannot be accepted.

9. Prima facie, an incorrect report has been submitted by the In- charge Civil Judge before this Court as is clear from para 5 of the report.

10. The Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file a response. He may do so within four weeks by filing a counter affidavit.

11. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

12. List in the third week of July, 2025.

13. Until further orders, the operation and effect of the order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-13) shall remain stayed.

14. The In-charge Civil Judge shall furnish fresh report expressing as to why prima facie an incorrect report has been submitted specifically in paras 5 and 6 through the District Judge, Lucknow.

15. This Court will consider passing further orders against the officer concerned on the next date based upon the response that may be received.

16. The Senior Registrar is directed to communicate this order to the In-charge Civil Judge (J.D.), North, Lucknow through the District Judge, Lucknow,who had given the report on

15.05.2025 and was placed before this Court along with the report of District Judge, Lucknow dated 15.05.2025.

17. The original record shall be retained by the Senior Registrar of this Court under sealed cover and place the same on the next date fixed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 akverma

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Singh Yadav, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2. The Vakalatnama is taken on record.

2. When the matter was entertained, the Court had noticed serious infractions alleged against the manner of decision making, which were reflected in the order dated 08.05.2025, which is quoted below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the plaintiff had filed a Suit No.614 of 2024, in which an application C-6 was also filed seeking injunction. The application was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2024. Without there being any challenge to the said order, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 CPC and without serving a copy of the said application on the defendant and without there being any specific date fixed for hearing and without hearing the petitioner, an order came to be passed on 26.07.2024.

3. Prima facie, the order dated 26.07.2024, which is impugned does not even indicate that the defendant was heard and no reason has been recorded as to why the defendant was not heard. Prima facie, the manner of exercise of powers does not appear to be correct while deciding the application under Section 151 of the CPC, the injunction application has been re-decided.

4. In view thereof, the District Judge, Lucknow is directed to send a report after perusing the file as to the manner in which, the order dated 26.07.2024 came to be passed without even serving a copy of the application on the defendant and without affording any opportunity of the hearing. The District Judge would be entitled to take the comment of the Civil Judge concerned.

5. The report shall be sent to this Court within three days.

6. Put up this matter in the list of fresh cases on 15th May, 2025.

7. The Senior Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Judge, Lucknow for compliance forthwith."

3. In pursuance to the said direction, a report was sent by the District Judge, which was considered on 15.05.2025 and the Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the report. The said order is quoted below: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the report dated 15.05.2025 which has been sent by the District Judge, Lucknow in pursuance to the directions given by this Court on 08.05.2025.

2. The report states that the Presiding Officer who had passed the order is at child care leave and the report has been sent by the Officer In-Charge of the Court at present.

3. Prima-facie, from perusal of the record and the report, the same does not inspire confidence, as such, the District Judge, Lucknow is directed to transmit the original record of the file to this Court by the next date of listing.

4. Senior Registrar shall ensure that the entire file in original is submitted for perusal of this Court on the next date of listing.

5. List on 22.05.2025, as fresh."

4. In pursuance to the order passed on 15.05.2025, the original record has been produced in seal cover before this Court today. What transpires from the perusal of the report is that after the injunction application was disposed off on merits, an application seems to be filed by the respondent no.2 under Section 151 of C.P.C. which was number as Application No.C- 25. On the said application, an order was passed on 02.07.2024 inviting objections. The matter was thereafter fixed on 08.07.2024. On 08.07.2024, the matter was adjourned to 16.07.2024 as the lawyers were on strike and on 16.07.2024, it was directed that the matter be listed on 26.07.2024. On 26.07.2024, an order came to be passed allowing the injunction application no.C-25.

5. On perusal of the entire order-sheet, it does not transpire that the copy of the Application No.C25 under Section 151 was ever served upon the petitioner or was received by his counsel. There is no order on record directing the applicant of Application No.C-25 to serve a copy of the application to the petitioner.

6. A perusal of the application under Section 151 reveals that according to the applicant, it was alleged that the order dated 30.05.2024, rejecting the injunction application, was on account of typographical errors and a request was made to modify the order dated 30.05.2024 failing which the applicant would suffer irreparable hardship.

7. From the entire records nothing can be deciphered that the copy has ever been served upon the petitioner. The report earlier submitted in terms of the directions through the District Judge, Lucknow by the In-charge Civil Judge (Junior Division), North, Lucknow, is also prima facie incorrect. Insofar as in para 5 of the said report, it has been observed that the defendants were present and had received a copy of the Application No.C-25 whereas no material exists to demonstrate that on 16.07.2024, the copy of the Application No.C-25 was ever served.

8. In any case of the matter, the Application No.C-25 was not allowed on the ground that there appears to be a typographical error in the earlier order dated 30.05.2024 which needs to be rectified. Instead of considering, the same the Civil Judge concerned proceeded to decide the injunction application afresh after recording that a prima facie case and balance of convenience and irreparable hardship was made out. Thus it is clear that the entire order has been passed on Application No.C- 25 without even giving any notice to the plaintiff and was clearly beyond the scope of prayer made before the court concerned in the Application No.C-25. In view thereof, the manner of decision making cannot be accepted.

9. Prima facie, an incorrect report has been submitted by the In- charge Civil Judge before this Court as is clear from para 5 of the report.

10. The Counsel for the respondent seeks time to file a response. He may do so within four weeks by filing a counter affidavit.

11. The petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.

12. List in the third week of July, 2025.

13. Until further orders, the operation and effect of the order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure-13) shall remain stayed.

14. The In-charge Civil Judge shall furnish fresh report expressing as to why prima facie an incorrect report has been submitted specifically in paras 5 and 6 through the District Judge, Lucknow.

15. This Court will consider passing further orders against the officer concerned on the next date based upon the response that may be received.

16. The Senior Registrar is directed to communicate this order to the In-charge Civil Judge (J.D.), North, Lucknow through the District Judge, Lucknow,who had given the report on

15.05.2025 and was placed before this Court along with the report of District Judge, Lucknow dated 15.05.2025.

17. The original record shall be retained by the Senior Registrar of this Court under sealed cover and place the same on the next date fixed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 akverma