Patna High Court
Siya Ram SinghversusRamkishore Singh
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- S B P SINGH
Holding
The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration after hearing both parties in accordance with law.
Summary
The petitioner, who is defendant No.2 in Title Suit No.256 of 2018, filed an application seeking to quash three orders that restrained him from executing documents and rejected his injunction petition. He contended that the trial court had passed the injunction order without serving summons or affording him a hearing, violating procedural law. The court examined whether the lack of service and hearing rendered the orders illegal and whether they could be set aside. Finding that the orders were indeed passed without due process, the court set aside all three impugned orders and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh hearing. The petitioner also undertook not to sell or alienate the suit property pending final disposal, and the trial court was directed to decide the injunction petition within one month.
Issues considered
- Whether an injunction order passed without service of summons and hearing is violative of the Civil Procedure Code.
- Whether the orders dated 22.03.2018, 19.10.2020, and 13.09.2022 can be quashed on procedural grounds.
- Whether the matter should be remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration with proper hearing.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rule 4
Subjects
- injunction
- status quo
- quashing order
- procedural due process
- Civil Procedure Code
- service of summons
- remand
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.79 of 2023
======================================================
Siya Ram Singh S/o Late Shyam Bihari Singh, Resident of Village-
Nasratpur, Post- Laxmanpur, Police Station- Jandaha, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Ramkishore Singh Son of Sri Balicharan Singh, Resident of Village-
Nasratpur, Post- Laxmanpur, Police Station- Jahdaha, District- Vaishali.
2. Sangita Kumari Wife of Sri ram Kishore Singh, Resident of Village-
Nasratpur, Post- Laxmanpur, Police Station- Jahdaha, District- Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Mritunjay Narain
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Bal Bhushan Choudhary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
ORAL ORDER
13 18-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the
parties.
2. The instant application has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“(i). For quashing the order dated
22.03.2018 passed in Title Suit No. 256 of
2018 by learned Sub-Judge VIII, Vaishali at
Hajipur by which an order has been passed
to maintain status quo as well as the
petitioner has been restrained to execute any
document.
(ii). For quashing of the order
dated 19.10.2020 passed in Title Suit No.
256 of 2018 by learned Sub-Judge XVI,
Vaishali at Hajipur by which he has rejected
the application filed by the petitioner under
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.79 of 2023(13) dt.18-03-2026
2/3
order 39 Rule 4 of CPC.
(iii). For quashing of the order
dated 13.09.2022 passed in Misc. Civil
Appeal No. 07 of 2020 by learned Additional
District Judge-V, Vaishali at Hajipur by
which he has rejected the Misc. Civil Appeal
No. 07 of 2020 filed by the petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is
defendant no. 2 in the Title Suit No. 256 of 2018 filed by the
respondent/plaintiff and without giving any opportunity of
hearing, as also without service of any summons for knowledge
of the suit, the injunction order has been passed, which is illegal
and against the spirit of law. The entire case record and order
sheets nowhere reflect that summons were properly served upon
Defendant No. 2 at the time of hearing of said injunction
petition by the Trial Court. Both of the aforesaid impugned
orders have been affirmed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Civil
Appeal No. 07 of 2020.
4. The above argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is in consonance with the records and copy of order
sheets filed by the petitioner. Impugned order has been passed
without giving any opportunity of participating in hearing,
which is against the law and procedure.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, and
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.79 of 2023(13) dt.18-03-2026
3/3
considering the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel
for the petitioner, the impugned order is set aside and the matter
is remanded to the Trial Court for afresh consideration after
hearing both the parties in accordance with law.
6. Petitioner i.e. defendant no. 2 in the Title Suit No.
256 of 2018, undertakes that he will not sell or alienate any part
of the suit property i.e. a house in which he is residing till the
disposal of the suit.
7. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed
and all the three abovementioned impugned orders are hereby
set aside.
8. Further, Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
injunction petition within a period of one month from the date
of receipt/production of this order, after hearing both the parties
in accordance with law. Both parties are also directed to
diligently co-operate in the hearing of injunction petition and
trial also.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Ankit Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.