Paro Food Products vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Another

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This Revision Petition is not at all maintainable as there is no order passed by the Court-below so as to be assailed u/s 115 of C.P.C. There is no decision or order rendered by the lower Court so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction u/s 115 of C.P.C. The complaint is that even though the lower Court has heard the Counsel at length perused the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. as also the documents 1 to 53 in support of the claim for temporary injunction, the lower Court did not make any interim order as contemplated under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Rule 3 thereof and that thereby committed material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by law. The contention is that the lower Court having power to pass the interim order was bound to pass the said interim order having regard to the material on record and that non-passing of the said ex-parte interim order amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. The further complaint is that the lower Court has ordered urgent notice to the respondents and no reasons are stated for doing so.

The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are not tenable under law. Merely because the arguments are advanced by the Counsel for the plaintiff, for a long time and that voluminous documents are filed, it does not obligate the Court to grant interim order as a matter of course. The very fact that the lower Court has heard the Counsel for the plaintiff so long shows that the lower-Court had applied its mind and was not inclined to grant the ex parte interim order and felt the need of hearing the respondents-defendants and as such issued urgent notice. This action of the lower Court is perfectly justified and is correct. Further, Sub-rule (3) was incorporated into Order 39 of CPC by amendment in 1976 obligating the Court to state reasons for granting the ex parte interim Order. The said amendment was brought-forth haying regard to the past experience of freely passing the interim injunction orders in a routine manner and that too, without assigning any reasons. To check this, the Parliament thought it fit to enact Rule 3 obligating the Courts to state reasons for granting the ex parte interim injunction orders. This implies that the ex parte interim injunction orders should be granted and by stating reasons of urgency as to why a notice was not being issued to the respondents before granting the interim injunction orders. As such, while no reasons need be stated by the Court for not granting the ex parte interim injunction orders and for issuing notice, reasons need to he stated for granting ex parte interim injunction orders.

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.