Gurudas Alavani. v. Mahajany Of The Temple Of Ramnatha, Through Its Attorney Managing Committee Ramnath Devasthan.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.108 of 2016 Gurudas Alavani, son of late Vinayak Alavani, major of age, Priest of the Temple of Shree Santhari, one of the Affiliated Temples of Shree Ramnath Devasthan, Ramnathi, Bandora, Ponda-Goa, presently resident of House near Ramnathi Parking, Ramnathi, Bandora, Ponda-Goa. ..

Petitioner

Versus

Mahajany of the temple of Ramnatha, Ramnathi, Bandora, Ponda-Goa, through its duly elected Attorney, having Office at Office of the Managing Committee, Ramnath Devasthan, Ramnathi, Bandora, Ponda-Goa.

..

Respondent Mr. Devidas J. Pangam and Mr. S. P. Munj, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Prasheen Lotlikar, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.

DATE :- 23 rd JUNE, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2.

The petitioner is the original defendant, who

is challenging the order dated 15/01/2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ponda in Regular Civil Suit No.10/2015/C. By the impugned order, application Exh.18 filed by the respondent/ plaintiff has been granted. The net result is that the Trial Court has decided to take up application for breach of injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, for hearing before hearing the application for Temporary Injunction. It appears that while doing so, the learned Trial Court has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Civil Revision Application No.183/1991 (Francisco Xavier Fernandes and another Vs. Anthony Fernandes) dated 30/09/1991.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Quantum Securities Pvt. Ltd and others Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., reported in (2015)10 SCC 602, in order to submit that in such a case, it is not appropriate that the main application is kept pending and application for contempt / breach of injunction, is taken up in precedence.

4.

The learned Counsel for the respondent, in all

fairness, does not dispute this position.

5.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Quantum Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has, inter alia, held that it would not be appropriate that in such cases, the Temporary Injunction application is kept pending, particularly when there is a statutory mandate to decide such an application within a period of 30 days under Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of C.P.C.

6.

In such circumstances and in view of the concession on behalf of the respondent, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The application Exh.18 is hereby dismissed. The learned Trial Court shall decide the application for Temporary Injunction as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

7.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

8.

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order.

C. V. BHADANG, J.

SMA