Judgment:
ORDER
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.97 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC as not pressed on the ground that the said application was not pressed by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner instituted a suit against the respondent seeking for a decree for grant of permanent injunction in respect of sale, alienation and restraining the respondents from transferring the possession in respect of the suit property. Along with the said suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed by the petitioner seeking for temporary injunction on which the Additional District Judge passed an order for maintenance of status quo in respect of title and possession of the suit property under his order dated 30.6.1995. The petitioner herein has alleged that the aforesaid order of injunction was wilfully disobeyed and/or violated by the respondent and, thereforee, filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 A CPC, which was pending disposal in the Court of the Civil Judge, Delhi.
3. Another suit in respect of the same suit premises was filed by M/s. Praveen Bhatia Estates (P) Ltd. in this court on 14.7.95. In the said suit, the said M/s. Praveen Bhatia Estates (P) Ltd. obtained an injunction against the petitioner restraining him from dispossessing it without due process of law. The petitioner also filed a criminal contempt petition in this court being Criminal Contempt Petition No. 19/1995 which is pending disposal in this court.
4. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was listed for orders. Counsel for the petitioner stated before the court that the aforesaid application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC would not be pressed for the time being as a criminal contempt petition is pending in the High Court. He also stated before the court that the petitioner, however, would not like to withdraw the same and that the said application be taken up for consideration at a later stage.
5. On 12.12.97 the aforesaid application was listed for arguments when an application for adjournment was moved by the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff has been advised bed rest up to 14.12.97. The said application for adjournment was opposed by the counsel for the respondent and pressed for a decision of the court as to whether the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, which was not pressed by the plaintiff on the previous date should not be dismissed as withdrawn.
6. The records reveal that the plaintiff/petitioner was represented by the plaintiff's clerk on 2.12.97. The court, however, proceeded to hear the arguments on the said application and the counsel for the defendant was heard. As the counsel for the plaintiff was not present on the date of argument the plaintiff was directed to file the written arguments within ten days which, however, was not filed by the plaintiff. The Civil Judge after considering the records and the submission of the counsel for the defendant held that since the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was not pressed, the same could be dismissed as not pressed. He was also of the opinion that either the plaintiff should withdraw the petition or should argue the said application as an application under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC has to be disposed of first and accordingly held that when the application was not pressed the said application is deemed to be dismissed as not pressed and the same would not be taken up later on.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order the present petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel for the respondent.
8. The application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC was listed for arguments before the court and it was open for the petitioner to advance his argu- ments on the said application. However, the counsel appearing for the petitioner did not prefer to argue the same and categorically stated before the court that the said application would not be pressed for the present and could be decided at a later stage since he is also not withdrawing the same. An adjournment was sought for by the plaintiff on 12.12.97, when the matter was listed stating that he was advised bed rest up to 14.12.97 and the petitioner was represented by his clerk. It is not stated as to why the counsel for the petitioner was not present on the day of arguments. Be that as it may, the Civil Judge heard the counsel for the defendant/respondent and gave an opportunity to the petitioner to file the written arguments within ten days which was also not filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The aforesaid facts disclosed from the records are very material. The petitioner/plaintiff sought to choose his own timing to argue the application. When an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC is filed in the court alleging disobedience and/or violation of an order of the court, such an application has to be taken up by the court as expeditiously as possible. thereforee, no fault could be found in the Order of the Civil Judge in taking up the said application immediately.
9. It is also revealed from the records that when the aforesaid application was taken up, counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that he was not pressing the application for the present but the same should be decided at a later stage since he was also not withdrawing the same. When an application is fixed for arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff is to advance his arguments on the said application and at that stage it is not open for the petitioner/plaintiff to contend that the said application should be taken up at a later stage when he chooses to press the same. If an allegation of disobedience and willful violation is made, such an application should get priority and is to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and such an application could not be adjourned sine die at the request of the applicant himself and, thereforee, I find no fault in the order of the Civil Judge, taking up the said matter for consideration, particularly when no Explanationn was given for absence of the counsel for the petitioner on 12.12.97. The order also reveals that although the counsel was not present, an opportunity was given to the petitioner/plaintiff to file the written argument on the said aspect within ten days. The said opportunity was not taken by the petitioner/plaintiff and no such written argument was filed. Thus, the Civil Judge rightly concluded that the petitioner/plaintiff does not press the application and the same was accordingly dismissed as not pressed. thereforee, I do not find any error in the aforesaid order passed by the learned Civil Judge. The petition stands dismissed.