IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.472 of 2008 SMT. SAROJ DUBEY & ORS Versus VIJAY KUMAR DUBEY & ORS ----------- 7 09.04.2009 Heard counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondents. In the opinion of this Court whenever an injunction petition is filed, the plea raised therein by the applicant has to be examined in the true sense of the matter. Here in this case, the plaintiffs-petitioners had filed an application for injunction in a partition suit claiming that on certain portion of suit premises she was/is residing with her family members. From the order, at least, it is very clear that this fact was not controverted and therefore it became an admitted fact that the plaintiff was residing in the part of the portion of suit premises. This Court, therefore, would not be in a position to approve the manner in which the prayer of injunction was mechanically considered and rejected in the impugned order specially on the ground that the defendants had not filed their written statement. The very purpose of injunction may at times is to 2 secure, safety and security of a person who is threatened on account of certain action taken by defendants. Such consideration therefore cannot kept pending awaiting filing of written statement. The whole purpose of filing of an injunction petition it will be rendered infructuous if the same has to depend on filing of a written statement of defendant. In that view of the matter, this Court would set aside the impugned order and direct the Court below to reconsider the prayer of injunction of the plaintiff appellant strictly in accordance with law. It is however made clear that it will be open for the respondents to raise a plea that as a matter of fact, the plaintiffs- opposite parties were not residing in the house but had only recently taken forcible possession thereof What would be the ultimate outcome of the injunction petition will depend on the facts of the case but then such an injunction petition has to be always considered objectively. With the aforementioned observations and directions this appeal is allowed, with an observation that as the suit is for partition 3 it will also serve the interest of justice if the same itself is taken up for haring for its being decided expeditiously. It goes without saying that till the matter is adjudicated by the Court below on remand, as directed above, the status quo as existing today shall be maintained by both the parties. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)