Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

Bank of Baroda Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (21 Feb 2022)

An application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC is permissible only if in the application seeking temporary injunction, a party has made false and misleading statement

MANU/DE/0612/2022

Civil

Appellant impugns order whereby the application filed by the Appellant as also by Respondent no. 1 under Order 39 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) have been dismissed. Both applications had sought vacation of order dated 25th February, 2013 which had been confirmed by the order dated 13th August, 2015.

The impugned order notes that an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC is permissible only if in the application seeking temporary injunction or in the affidavit supporting such application, a party has made false and misleading statement in respect to a material particular and injunction was granted without notice to the opposite party. Second proviso to Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC lays down that where an order of injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, said order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside except where such discharge, variations or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party.

As noticed by the trial Court, there is no modification or variations sought of order dated 13th August, 2015 which had confirmed the initial ad-interim order dated 25th February, 2013. Further, it is noticed that nothing had been brought on record to show that the Appellant had suffered any hardship or that there was any change in the circumstances. Trial court has also noticed that no appeal has been filed by the appellant either against the order of 25th February, 2013 or against the order dated 13th August, 2015.

Since the application filed by the appellant does not satisfy the requirements of the second proviso to Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, the orders dated 25th February, 2013 and 13th August, 2015 do not warrant any modification or vacation under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC.

The trial court has committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal. The subject suit is a suit challenging the invocation of a letter of credit and has been pending since the year 2013. It is directed that trial court shall expedite the proceedings. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : APPLICATION   MODIFICATION   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved