Dr. Anit Singh, and Others. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

[k.t. thomas and; r.p. sethi, jj.] - civil procedure code (cpc) - sections 104 - order 39, rules 1, 2, 2a, 3a, 4 and 10 - order 43, rule 1; constitution of india - article 227 - orders from which appeal lies -- when a plaintiff rushed to the civil court for an ex-parte interimorder of injunction against some of the defendants and obtained it, those defendants rushed to the high court to get that order quashed. appellant-plaintiff filed the suit on 25.6.1999 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant nos.1 to 5 from dispossessing him. documents perused. ad interim injunction till then. order 39 rule 3 to be complied with. after holding thus learned single judge directed the trial court to take up the interlocutory application for injunction and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. order 43 rule 1 says that: an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104 namely. an order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 2a, rule 4 or rule 10 of order 39. the choice is for the party affected by the order either to move the appellate court or to approach the same court which passed the ex parte order for any relief. learned senior counsel for the respondents then contended that an order granting injunction without complying with the requisites envisaged in rule 3 of order 39 be void. learned single judge stated that the trial court ought not to have granted ex parte injunction beyond thirty days to be in force. the aforesaid rule casts a three-pronged protection to the party against whom the ex parte injunction order was passed. second is the legal obligation that if for any valid reasons the court could not finally dispose of the application within the aforesaid time the court has to record the reasons thereof in writing......academic session 2007-08. it is further pointed out that the state government had earlier granted affiliation for a period of one year to the college with effect from the academic session 2006-07 but the same has not been renewed. he further states that it is for the first time in the impugned order that the university has informed that the affiliation has not been extended.4. in a matter where the matter relating to grant of affiliation was pending before the state government, a division bench of this court in special appeal no.292 of 2010 (ram dulari bachcu lal jaiswal mahavidyalaya, nawabganj, atrampur, allahabad & anr. v. state of u.p. & ors.) decided on 9th march, 2010 modified the judgment and order of a learned judge of this court by permitting the students to appear at the examination subject to the decision to be taken by the state government.5. learned standing counsel appears for respondent nos.1 and 2, sri sanjay kumar singh appears for respondent no.3 while sri pankaj naqvi appears for respondent no.4. respondent no.5 is represented by sri ashok nigam, learned senior counsel with sri ajay bhanot. issue notice to respondent no.6 by registered post. steps may be taken within a week.6. respondents may file the counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.7. connect this petition with writ petition no.44899 of 2010.8. in view of the directions dated 9th march, 2010 passed in special appeal no.292 of 2010, the petitioners shall be provisionally permitted to appear at the forthcoming mds examination in terms of the directions issued by the government of india, ministry of health and family welfare in the communication dated 25/27th august, 2009 for the academic session 2007-08 but the appearance shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the state government. the result, however, shall not be declared till further orders of this court.