Sonu. Vs. State of U.P.

[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.1. counter affidavits have been filed today, it may be taken on record. heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned aga for the state and perused the record.2. it is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that no deadly weapon was used in committing murder of the deceased and in ante-mortem report injury no. 3 is fatal but it is not clear that which of the accused person has caused this injury. it is further contended that as per fir three accused persons have inflicted injuries but it is not pecifically mentioned that by which accused person deceased has received injuries.3. learned aga has contended that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he was involved in committing murder of the deceased. the occurrence has taken place in the day light of the occurrence.4. applicant sonu is in jail since 25.08.2009 and applicant sumit is in jail since 08.08.2009. no deadly weapon was used in committing murder of the deceased.5. considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail. let the applicants sonu and sumit involved in case crime no. 391 of 2009,6. s.t. no. 1233 of 2009 under sections 302 ipc, p.s. kila parikshatgarh, dist. meerut be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.