Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
As the relief is innocuous for a direction to decide the objections filed by the petitioner expeditiously, issuance of notice to the private respondents
is dispensed with.
It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the opposite parties filed a Suit for permanent injunction alognwith an application for
temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., which was registered as Regular Suit No. 456 of 2006 in which objections were filed
by the petitioner and the Civil Judge disposed of the said objections, against which an appeal was filed. The Appellate Authority remanded the
matter to the trial Court to decide the matter expeditiously and by concealing the aforesaid facts, the opposite party No.4 again preferred a Suit for
the same cause of action which was registered as Regular Suit No. 937 of 2006. The petitioner preferred objections (Annexure 7) wherein it has
been mentioned that the Suit is being barred by res judicata. The dispute in Suit No. 937 of 2006 and 435 of 2006 are identical and the parties are
also identical, but till date the said objections have not been decided by the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest of justice would suffice if the trial Court is directed to decide the objections filed by the
petitioner (Annexure 7) expeditiously, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.
In view of above, without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the trial Court to decide the
objections (Annexure 7), in accordance with law, latest by 31.1.2009.
