Full Judgment
R.D. Shukla, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgmentorder dated 9.1.92 of the Additional District Judge, Indore passed in HinduMarriage Case No. 769/91 whereby the appellant-husband has been restrainedfrom contracting the second marriage during the pendency of the applicationunder Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting-aside the ex-parte decree passedagainst the wife-respondent vide Civil Suit No. 768/91.
2. It is an admitted fact that on a petition filed by the appellant husband the respondent-wife was proceeding ex-parte. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed an application for setting-aside the ex-parte decree under Order9 Rule 13 CPC. The same is still pending before the Court.
3. During the pendency of that application the respondent-wife filedan application for temporary injunction against the husband and sought a direction that the husband-appellant be restrained from contracting second marriageduring the pendency of the said application.
4. Learned Addl. District Judge vide the impugned order has restrained the appellant from contracting the marriage during the pendency of thesaid application. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since theCourt could not pass the final order about the injunction and the only orderthat could be passed is about the judicial separation, divorce or restitution and,therefore, the injuction, could not be granted.
6. As against this, learned Counsel for respondent has submitted thatthe injunction could be granted under Order 39 Rule 2 C.P.C. Order 39 Rule 2C.P.C. refers toward 'or other injury of any kind' i.e. to say if the suit for anyother injury the injunction could be granted.
7. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, since the C.P.C. is applicable in the cases of Hindu Marriage Act as per Section 21 of the Hindu MarriageAct, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2 C.P.C. would also be attracted inthe case.
8. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the Trial Court would bejustified in granting any injunction or in issuing direction for meeting the endsof justice. If in this case the husband-appellant is permitted or is not restrainedfrom contracting marriage the whole proceedings would be frusted. Under thecircumstances the Trial Court was perfectly justified in granting injunction infavour of the wife-respondent and against the appellant-husband.
9. I am further fortified in my view by a case reported in Ravindra v.Partibha, (1987 MPLJ 51 & 161)=1987 DMC M.P. 130. I have no ground todifferwith the view expressed therein. Under these circumstances the appealhas no force.
10. It appears that application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending for a long period. It is desirable that it is disposed of at the earliest and asfar as possible within six months from today. Counsel for respondent informsthat probably that Court is vacant. In that situation learned District Judge, ifrequested may transfer the case to any other competent Court.
11. With the directions aforesaid, this appeal fails and is dismissedwith cost. Counsel fee as per Schedule, if certified.