Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) The petitioners are the defendants in the suit, who are aggrieved by the grant of ex-parte injunction. It is stated that an application under Order 39, Rule 4 of CPC. has been moved, on which various dates have been fixed, but even after expiry of more than six months, the proceedings upon the application of the defendants petitioners have not been concluded. From the ordersheet, it appears that the proceedings have been deferred on different dates.
(2.) The proceedings in the matter are required to be undertaken strictly, in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. The Code specifically provides that an application under Order 39, Rule 4 of CPC is required to be considered for setting aside or modifying an ex-parte order of injunction. In the facts of the present case, the defendants petitioners have stated that taking advantage of the grant of ex-parte injunction, plaintiff is undertaking construction work, and his application for vacation of the said ex-parte injunction is not being considered.
(3.) Considering the above, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the court concerned to decide the application of the defendants petitioners filed under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC, after hearing the parties concerned, at the earliest, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. It is expected that the court shall comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and take the proceedings to its logical end, at the earliest possible. Petition disposed of .;