1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1145/2006 {Ramesh Chand Jain Versus Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Others} Date of Order :: 24th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sudarshan Laddha for the petitioner Mr. Ankur Saxena for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This writ petition on behalf of plaintiff is directed against the impugned order dated 16th December, 2005 (Annexure-6) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bundi, whereby he refused to pass an interim injunction order in his favour during the pendency of the application for temporary injunction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he filed a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction in the trial court against the defendants stating therein that entire due loan amount was paid by him to respondents and no objection certificate dated 28th May, 2000 was placed on record but inspite 2 of this certificate, the recovery proceedings was started against him after delay of 5 years. He further contended that on 16th December, 2005, there was a boycott on behalf of advocates, therefore, advocate could not appear on that day and after hearing the plaintiff in person the interim prayer was refused. He, therefore, contended that impugned order be set-aside and interim injunction order be passed in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the writ petition is directed against an interim order, therefore, the same is not maintainable. This Court may direct the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction itself finally at an early date. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 16th December, 2005 and also the annexed documents with the writ petition including a no due certificate dated 28th May, 2000 (Annexure-2). It is correct that this writ petition is directed against an interim order during the pendency of application for temporary injunction but in view of the fact that there is a prima-facie 3 case in favour of the plaintiff in view of no due certificate (Annexure-2) and further that this Court while issuing the notice to show cause on recovery on 28th February, 2006 also passed an order that in the mean time, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps in pursuance to the recovery order (Annexure-6), I am of the view to direct the trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction itself and to pass an interim order also. 7. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to decide the application for temporary injunction filed by plaintiff petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC as soon as possible preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt / submission of the order of this Court. It is further directed that the interim order passed by this Court dated 28th February, 2006 shall remain in force till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction by the trial court. 8. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK