Kumari Reshma and ors. Vs. State of Utter Pradesh (U.P.) and anr.

[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......magistrate after recording the statements of complainant under section 200 of the code and her witnesses under section 202 of the code in mechanical way summoned the accused-petitioners for the offence under sections 323, 504, 498-a i.p.c. and section 4 d.p.act. therefore, the proceedings of complaint case as well as summoning order passed by the learned additional chief judicial magistrate, hardoi are liable to be quashed. learned a.g.a. opposed the petition. considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned a.g.a.5. from a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned magistrate after perusal of the statements of complainant recorded under section 200 cr.p.c. and witnesses recorded under section 202 cr.p.c. found, prima facie, evidence in support of commission of offence under sections 323, 504, 498-a i.p.c. and section 4 d.p.act against the accused petitioners. consequently, he by the impugned order summoned the accused petitioners which in my opinion does not suffer from any illegality and hence, the same cannot be quashed. 6. the petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. the petition is, therefore, dismissed. however, it is provided that in case accused-petitioners appear before the trial court within three weeks from today and move any application for bail, the same will be disposed of by both the courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day keeping in view the full bench decision of this court in the case of srimati amrawati and another v. state of u.p. 2004 cbc page 705. 7. it is also provided that if the accused-petitioners, namely, kumari reshma, mehrunnisha, smt seema after release on bail move any application to appear through counsel before the trial court, the same will be allowed by the trial court with the condition that they will personally appear before the court whenever their personal appearance will be needed. in the meantime, execution of warrant issued against the.....