IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2015
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16099 of 2012]
Shri Westarly Dkhar & Ors. …….Appellants
Versus
Shri Sehekaya Lyngdoh ….….Respondent
By an order dated 29th October, 2009, the District Council Court admitted an appeal against the said order and stayed it. By a further order dated 9th March, 2010, the ad-interim ex-parte injunction was set aside as the District Council Court allowed the appeal. A Civil Revision Petition was filed against the said order, and by the impugned order dated 27th April, 2012, the revision was allowed stating that since an appeal had been filed within 30 days of the ad-interim ex-parte order, it would not be maintainable under the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the appellate order was set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Civil Procedure Code does not apply in these areas but only the spirit thereof applies. The appeal was very much maintainable as it was granted by Rule 28 of The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment under appeal and stated that this Court’s judgment in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan & Ors.,(2000) 7 SCC 695 fully supported the case of the respondent inasmuch as an aggrieved party cannot approach the Appellate Court during the pendency of the application for vacation of a temporary injunction. An appeal can only be entertained under an extraordinary circumstance – namely, the failure or omission of the Subordinate Court to comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3A. Further, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment in Innovative Pharma Surgicals v. Pigeon Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2004 AP 310, stating the same thing….read more