Vinay Goyal v. Sandeep Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd, most expeditiously or Mithin such time as this Hon'

"(1) direct the defendant-respondents to maintain status quo and not to create charge, mortgage, sell, or otherwise relinquish in any manner the movable and immovable properties of the defendant-respondent no.1-Company; in the alternative, direct the defendant-respondents to furnish a security of Rs.53,00,000/- to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar; (ii) direct the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar to decide the interim injunction application (paper no.6Ga) and/or the ad-interim injunction application (paper no. 86Ga) filed in Original Suit No. 841 of 2024: Vinay Goyal Vs. Sandeep Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd, most expeditiously or Mithin such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;"

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a money suit, the petitioner moved an application for interim injunction, which is pending for the reason that the trial court is engaged in considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

3. Considering the imminent threat of properties being disposed of by the defendants, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C. The said application is also pending and is not being decided by the court below.

4. Since the application for interim injunction as well as application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C. are pending, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. 2 CMRA No. 310 of 2025

5. Trial court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar is directed to decide both the applications, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without waiting for decision on application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. "

2. Contention of learned counsel for the defendants-applicants is that the suit as framed by the plaintiff-opposite party is not maintainable before the civil court and since nature of the dispute is commercial as defined under Section 2(c)(1) and XVIII of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the suit can be filed only before the commercial court and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The application filed by the applicants for rejection of the plaint under Order VI Rule 11 of C.P.C. is still pending and because of the direction issued by this court by order dated

11.09.2025, application filed under Order VI Rule 11 of C.P.C. is not being considered and court is considering the application for grant of interim injunction.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-opposite party contended that the nature of dispute in the present suit is not commercial as defined under Section 2(c)(1) and XVIII of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and has been rightly filed before the civil court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the opposite party that since the money suit has been filed and there is every likelihood that the applicants may dispose off the money in order to frustrate the decree, if any, passed in the suit, the application for interim relief may be considered prior to considering the application under Order VI Rule 11 of C.P.C.

4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Asma Lateef and another Vs. Shabbir Ahmad and others reported in (2024) 4 SCC 696, in paragraph No. 50 has held as under: "50. Although not directly arising in the present case, we also wish to observe that the question of jurisdiction would assume importance even at the stage a court considers the question of grant of interim relief. Where interim relief is claimed in a suit before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also 3 CMRA No. 310 of 2025 contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law. Such a satisfaction resting on appreciation of the averments in the plaint, the application for interim relief and the written objection thereto, as well as the relevant law that is cited in support of the objection, would be a part of the court’s reasoning of a prima facie case having been set up for interim relief, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant and non-grant would cause irreparable harm and prejudice. It would be inappropriate for a court to abstain from recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability, yet, proceed to grant protection pro tem on the assumption that the question of maintainability has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV, CPC. That could amount to an improper exercise of power. If the court is of the opinion at the stage of hearing the application for interim relief that the suit is barred by law or is otherwise not maintainable, it cannot dismiss it without framing a preliminary issue after the written statement is filed but can most certainly assign such opinion for refusing interim relief. However, if an extraordinary situation arises where it could take time to decide the point of maintainability of the suit and non- grant of protection pro tem pending such decision could lead to irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order in the manner indicated above justifying the course of action it adopts. In other words, such an order may be passed, if at all required, to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non- interference by the court."

5. In view of the law laid down by Supreme Court, I am of the view that trial court while considering the application for grant of temporary injunction should take into consideration the parameters which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asma Lateef (supra) and should decide the application as directed by this Court earlier.

6. With these observations, the review application stands disposed of. October 15, 2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

"(1) direct the defendant-respondents to maintain status quo and not to create charge, mortgage, sell, or otherwise relinquish in any manner the movable and immovable properties of the defendant-respondent no.1-Company; in the alternative, direct the defendant-respondents to furnish a security of Rs.53,00,000/- to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar; (ii) direct the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar to decide the interim injunction application (paper no.6Ga) and/or the ad-interim injunction application (paper no. 86Ga) filed in Original Suit No. 841 of 2024: Vinay Goyal Vs. Sandeep Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd, most expeditiously or Mithin such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;"

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in a money suit, the petitioner moved an application for interim injunction, which is pending for the reason that the trial court is engaged in considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C.

3. Considering the imminent threat of properties being disposed of by the defendants, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C. The said application is also pending and is not being decided by the court below.

4. Since the application for interim injunction as well as application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C. are pending, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending. 2 CMRA No. 310 of 2025

5. Trial court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar is directed to decide both the applications, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without waiting for decision on application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C., in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. "

2. Contention of learned counsel for the defendants-applicants is that the suit as framed by the plaintiff-opposite party is not maintainable before the civil court and since nature of the dispute is commercial as defined under Section 2(c)(1) and XVIII of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the suit can be filed only before the commercial court and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. The application filed by the applicants for rejection of the plaint under Order VI Rule 11 of C.P.C. is still pending and because of the direction issued by this court by order dated

11.09.2025, application filed under Order VI Rule 11 of C.P.C. is not being considered and court is considering the application for grant of interim injunction.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-opposite party contended that the nature of dispute in the present suit is not commercial as defined under Section 2(c)(1) and XVIII of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and has been rightly filed before the civil court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the opposite party that since the money suit has been filed and there is every likelihood that the applicants may dispose off the money in order to frustrate the decree, if any, passed in the suit, the application for interim relief may be considered prior to considering the application under Order VI Rule 11 of C.P.C.

4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Asma Lateef and another Vs. Shabbir Ahmad and others reported in (2024) 4 SCC 696, in paragraph No. 50 has held as under: "50. Although not directly arising in the present case, we also wish to observe that the question of jurisdiction would assume importance even at the stage a court considers the question of grant of interim relief. Where interim relief is claimed in a suit before a civil court and the party to be affected by grant of such relief, or any other party to the suit, raises a point of maintainability thereof or that it is barred by law and also 3 CMRA No. 310 of 2025 contends on that basis that interim relief should not to be granted, grant of relief in whatever form, if at all, ought to be preceded by formation and recording of at least a prima facie satisfaction that the suit is maintainable or that it is not barred by law. Such a satisfaction resting on appreciation of the averments in the plaint, the application for interim relief and the written objection thereto, as well as the relevant law that is cited in support of the objection, would be a part of the court’s reasoning of a prima facie case having been set up for interim relief, that the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant and non-grant would cause irreparable harm and prejudice. It would be inappropriate for a court to abstain from recording its prima facie satisfaction on the question of maintainability, yet, proceed to grant protection pro tem on the assumption that the question of maintainability has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Rule 2 of Order XIV, CPC. That could amount to an improper exercise of power. If the court is of the opinion at the stage of hearing the application for interim relief that the suit is barred by law or is otherwise not maintainable, it cannot dismiss it without framing a preliminary issue after the written statement is filed but can most certainly assign such opinion for refusing interim relief. However, if an extraordinary situation arises where it could take time to decide the point of maintainability of the suit and non- grant of protection pro tem pending such decision could lead to irreversible consequences, the court may proceed to make an appropriate order in the manner indicated above justifying the course of action it adopts. In other words, such an order may be passed, if at all required, to avoid irreparable harm or injury or undue hardship to the party claiming the relief and/or to ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by reason of non- interference by the court."

5. In view of the law laid down by Supreme Court, I am of the view that trial court while considering the application for grant of temporary injunction should take into consideration the parameters which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asma Lateef (supra) and should decide the application as directed by this Court earlier.

6. With these observations, the review application stands disposed of. October 15, 2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad