AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Govindaraj, J
Against the order of interim injunction granted by the Trial Court dated 03.06.2019 in I.A.No.419 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2019, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Trial Court has not recorded any reasons as mandated under Order 39 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code and has passed an interim order without recording the reasons.
In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RT.REV.DR.V.DEVASAHYAM VS. D.SAHAYADOSS [2002 (1) CTC 458] and INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS. AMRITSAR GAS SERVICE AND OTHERS [1991 (1) SCC 533]. As per the said judgments, whenever the Court intends to grant exparte injunction without notice to opposite parties, it shall record its reasons for its opinion and require applicant to comply with conditions stipulated in clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC. The Trial Judge is not expected to simply record the terms "prima facie case made out and injunction granted", but would satisfy itself about the maintainability of the suit as well as the reasons that the delay would defeat the justice to dispense with the notice.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has also filed another suit in O.S.No.204 of 2019 before the Principal District Court, Chengalpet for injunction and to nullify the interim order impugned herein.
From the perusal of the records, it is seen that on 03.06.2019 an interim order was granted and on 08.06.2019, the petitioner filed its counter affidavit before the Trial Court for vacating the interim order.
I do not go into the merits of the case. On the face of it, the Trial Court while granting injunction order without notice, shall record its reasons as to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable injury that will be caused to the petitioner. In the impugned order, no such reason is recorded. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the injunction application shall be disposed of immediately. Further, an appeal remedy is available to the petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order passed by the Trial Court. Without exhausting such remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court after choosing to contest the case before the Trial Court.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that a direction issued to the Trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.417 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2019 within a limited time would suffice in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.417 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2019 on or before 03.07.2019, on merits and in accordance with law.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.