Court on its own Motion vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sodhi, J.—A wholly erroneous interpretation of the recent instructions issued to all District and Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab

& Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh, by the letter of Way 2, 1990 is what impels interference, by this Court, on its own motion, with

the impugned order of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Ambala City of May 24, 1990.

The matter here concerns the grant of ad interim temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit in terms of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. Laid down, in these provisions are the circumstances under which temporary injunction can be granted. It is well-settled,

however, that the existence of such circumstances does not invariably compel the court to grant temporary injunctions. In other words, the grant of

temporary injunctions is a matter which falls within the domain of judicial discretion that vests in the court. The exercise of such discretion depends

upon a variety of factors. It is impossible to lay down any general rule on the subject by which the discretion of the court ought, in all cases, to be

regulated, but one principle is well settled, namely; that in no case does the court grant an ad interim injunction as a matter of course.

As is, however, well-known, the courts have over the years evolved a set of broad principles to be kept in view while considering the grant of

temporary injunction, namely; whether the party seeking it has a strong prima facie case in support of the right asserted, irreparable injury would

result if the injunction sought is denied and comparative balance of convenience also lies in the grant of the injunction.

Further, there are the relevant provisions of Chapter 1. L Part-I of Volume-I of the High Court Rules & Orders pertaining to the grant of

temporary injunctions which have stood the test of time for decades now. To put the matter in its true perspective, these are reproduced

hereunder:--

3 It has been noticed that temporary injunctions are frequently issue ex parte by subordinate courts, without realizing fully their consequences. The

following instructions in respect of such orders should therefore be ordinarily followed :

(i) The Court should scrutinise carefully the plaint, the application and the affidavit before interfering with the defendants'' rights and should satisfy

itself that some recent happenings have justified the interference without notice to the defendants.

(ii) Court should use the rules in Order XXXIX, Civil Procedure Code, with great discrimination, and should not overlook the significance of the

word ""may"" wherever it occurs. It should not treat the exception in Rule 3 as the normal procedure. Interlocutory injunctions should be granted ex

parte only in very exceptional circumstances, and only when the plaintiff can convince the Court that by no reasonable diligence could he have

avoided the necessity of applying behind the defendants'' back.

(iii) Such injunctions, when granted, should be limited to a week or less, i e., the minimum time within which the defendant can come before the

Court, assuming that to get rid of the injunctions, he will be prepared to use the greatest expedition possible.

(iv) The Court should state clearly what acts it has restrained. Vague orders such as Issue of temporary injunctions as prayed should be avoided.

Where only some of the acts mentioned in the petition need to be urgently restrained the ex parte order should be confined to these only. The plaint

or petition should not merely be copied out.

(v) When the defendant appears and files his affidavit, the plaintiff should be given only a few days to answer it. The contested application should

then be heard, as soon as possible, and if the Judge cannot dispose it of at once, should, for the term of the adjournment, which should be as short

as possible, either grant an ad interim injunction, or obtain an undertaking from the defendant not to do any acts complained against.

(vi) After the plaintiff has obtained an interim or ex parte order, the court should take care to see that he does not abuse the advantage by resorting

to the usual dilatory tactics; such as delay in deposit of process fees, evasion of service of summons on a proforma defendant interested with the

plaintiff in delaying the suit or in other manner.

The above instructions are not intended to restrict the discretion of Courts but every application for en ex pane injunction should be very

carefully considered in the light of these instructions and should not be granted unless sufficiently good grounds are made out.

These provisions and the instructions issued by this Court, on the subject, are in consonance with the well-recognized judicial principles and

precedents. To reiterate them, the latest instructions of May 2, 1990 were issued. It is to be emphasised that they do not and nor indeed were they

ever designed to curtail or divest subordinate courts of the jurisdiction vested in them to grant the relief of temporary injunction. For any

Subordinate Judge, therefore, while considering an application for grant of temporary injunction to observe as in the case here, ""more so in view of

the latest instructions issued by the Hon''ble High Court, this court has no jurisdiction to stay the termination/suspension and transfer of the

employee (plaintiff)"", cannot but be branded as a blatant misreading of the relevant instructions The construe them in this manner is clearly contrary

to the letter and spirit of the law as also, of course, the instructions themselves. In other words, there is no bar to the subordinate courts granting

temporary injunctions in appropriate cases, in accordance with law. These observations are accordingly hereby directed to be deleted from the

impugned order.

The parties are otherwise left to seek their appropriate relief from the trial court or the lower appellate court, as they may deem appropriate.

This matter is disposed of accordingly.