AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Plaintiff in O.S. No. 164/2013 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal has filed this writ petition questioning an order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Trial Court. Suit was filed on 01.03.2013 to pass a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and from committing any act of encroachment and for grant of consequential reliefs. Along with the suit, I.A. 1/2013, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC was filed to pass an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. Trial Court by an order dated 04.03.2013 ordered for issue of temporary injunction as prayed in I.A. 1/2013 till next date or till the appearance of the defendants, whichever is earlier. Plaintiff was directed to comply with the provision under Order 39 Rule 3(a) of CPC. Suit summons and emergent notice on I.A. 1/2013 was ordered to be issued to the defendants returnable by 04.04.2013. On 04.04.2013, defendants 1, 2 entered appearance through an advocate so also defendant No. 4. A memo was filed by learned advocate for defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 3 has died on 14.03.2013. An I.A. was filed by the plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and process fee was furnished. Yet another I.A. was filed under S. 151 CPC for extension of order of temporary injunction. Learned Trial Judge, noticing that on 04.03.2013, temporary injunction was granted till next date or till the appearance of defendants, whichever is earlier, defendants 1, 2 &4 having appeared, rejected said I.A. and refused to extend the order of temporary injunction. Suit was adjourned to 10.04.2013, to enable defendants 1, 2 & 4 to file written statement and objections to I.A. 1/2013.
Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the suit which was posted to today, has now been adjourned to 17.04.2013 and there is extreme urgency in the matter.
On 09.04.2013, petitioner was directed to obtain hand summons and effect service on respondents. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to serve a copy of the writ petition on the learned advocate who appears for the defendants in the Trial Court with an intimation that the writ petition would be taken up for consideration today. An affidavit of Sri. S. Suresh, advocate has been filed in which it has been stated that Sri. Chandrashekar, Advocate, appearing for the 3rd respondent/defendant No. 4 received the copy of the writ petition and acknowledged the same, but the learned counsel who has appeared for defendants 1 & 2 before the Trial Court, refused to receive the copy, in spite of being informed of the order passed by this Court. It has been further stated that, copies of the writ petition and the documents annexed were sent through courier on 09.04.2013 itself. The receipt issued by the DTDC Courier has been produced along with the affidavit. There is no appearance for the respondents.
In the view which I intend to take, there is no need for me to await the appearance of respondents, particularly in view of the affidavit dated 15.04.2013 of Sri. S. Suresh, Advocate, which is placed on record. Trial Court passed an exparte order of temporary injunction on 04.03.2013. Defendants 1, 2 & 4 appeared through advocates on 04.04.2013. Written statement and objections were not filed. Since an application was filed under S. 151 CPC by the plaintiff, there was a need for the Trial Court to have passed a reasoned order with regard to the extension or otherwise of the exparte order of temporary injunction passed on 04.03.2013. Without assigning any reason of whatsoever nature, I.A. filed under S. 151 CPC has been rejected. A Court cannot pass an arbitrary or unreasoned order. Any order passed by it should be a reasoned order. The reasons which enabled the Trial Court not to extend the temporary injunction ought to have been made clear, while passing the order on I.A. filed seeking extension of temporary injunction. The approach of the Trial Court to the application filed under S. 151 CPC is certainly arbitrary and illegal. Exception will have to be taken for passing the unreasoned order rejecting the application, without even noticing either the facts or the contentions.
Keeping in view the above, learned Trial Judge is directed to hear I.A. 1/2013, which is still pending consideration, on 17.04.2013 and pass an appropriate order.
A copy of this order be furnished to the learned advocate for the petitioner to enable him to place on record of the suit pending in the Trial Court, for compliance.
Contentions of both parties on I.A. 1/2013 are left open for consideration by the Trial Court.