1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3331/2008 (Smt.Nalini Rana Vs. ADJ No.3 Jodhpur & anr.) Date of Order :: 22nd May 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.O.P.Mehta for the petitioner Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the impugned order dated 13.05.2008 (Annex.15), this Court could only reject this writ petition as being absolutely bereft of substance. The prayer as made by the petitioner for deciding the application for grant of temporary injunction and the application for appointment of receiver together has been rejected by the learned Trial Court with the observations that the considerations in two applications were different and both the matters were to be decided on their merit and the application for appointment of receiver was not required to be decided with the application for temporary injunction. Learned counsel would argue with reference to the decisions in Mulji Umershi Shah Vs. Paradisia Builders Pvt. Ltd.: AIR 1998 Bombay 87, Mathulla Ittan Pillai Vs. Ouseph Mannanda: AIR 1952 Travancore-Cochin 332; and D.K.Raja Vs. P.S. Kumaraswami Raja: AIR 1955 Madras 360 that while 2 deciding the application for temporary injunction, the Court could appoint receiver if it is found convenient, just and necessary. The observations as made in the aforesaid cases have no relevance to the question at hands and for such observations it cannot be assumed that whenever the applications for issuance of temporary injunction and appointment of receiver are preferred before the Trial Court, the same ought to be decided together. It is ultimately for the Trial Court to consider as to how supplemental proceedings in a given suit are to be dealt with. The observations as made by the learned Trial Court remain unexceptionable and call for no interference. Another submission was made before the Trial Court that the defendant has filed affidavit after filing of rejoinder by the petitioner and with reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Ummed Kanya Pathshala Vs. Anil Kachwah & others: 2001 (5) WLC (Raj.) 221, it was submitted that no such affidavit could have been filed without permission of the Court. The learned Trial Court has observed that for disposal of the application for temporary injunction, parties could file their affidavits and for that purpose, no separate permission of the Court was requisite. Learned counsel would argue again with reference to the decision in Shri Ummed Kanya Pathshala (supra) that when even the affidavit by way of 3 rejoinder cannot be submitted without leave of the Court, there could arise no question of filing an affidavit after filing of rejoinder and the learned Trial Court has erred in permitting the respondent to do so. The arguments are, again, not convincing. The observations as made by the learned Trial Court in relation to the affidavits filed by the defendant do not appear to be hit by the ratio of the decision of this Court in Shri Ummed Kanya Pathshala's case (supra). On the contrary, on all the fundamental principles dealing with the law of procedure that the parties are afforded fullest opportunity of hearing and then, keeping in view the fact that the present one is only a matter pertaining to supplemental proceedings that are essentially required to be decided on affidavits, if the learned Trial Court has not found it appropriate to reject the affidavit filed by the respondent from consideration, the order remains unexceptionable and hardly a case of substantial failure of justice is made out so as to call for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It may be pointed out that with amendment to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act of 1999, interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, sparingly, considered in the matters 4 where the impugned order might lead to substantial failure of justice and not in every order made by the Courts during the course of civil proceedings. Moreover, the order dated 13.05.2008 has been made only in supplemental proceedings where the Court is to consider whether any interim order is required to be made during the pendency of the suit or not. In such proceedings, when the learned Trial Court has not considered it proper to deal with the application for appointment of receiver and application for temporary injunction together; and when the learned Trial Court has not found it justified to reject the affidavits filed by the non-petitioner from consideration, the order impugned cannot be said to be leading to any injustice so as to call for interference by this Court. Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK