The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for the court to issue notice before granting injunction, as per Rule 3 of Order 39 C. P. C., and the emphasis on giving reasons for granting injunction without notice, as per Rule 3-A.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order granting interim injunction under Order 39 rule 1 C. P. C. The order reads as under :"heard Shri Bankatlai Mandhana, Advocate, Perused the affidavit allegations. In view of the allegations I think urgent orders have to be passed. Interim injunction and notice by 13-6-1980. Compliance affidavit under 0. 39 R. 3 (b) C. P. C. , has to be filed on 15-4-1980. Call on 15-4-1980. "the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when an ex parte interim injunction was granted without notice, it is necessary that the Court should record the reasons therefore and that the mandatory provision directing the Court to record the reasons is not complied with in the present case and therefore the Order granting interim injunction is vitiated. Order 39 Rule 3 C. P. C. , reads as under :"3. Before granting injunction Court to direct notice to opposite party: The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party. Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without notice of the application to the opposite party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay. . . . . . . . . "

( 2 ) THEREFORE under Rule 3 it is incumbent upon the lower Court to issue notice before granting injunction. If for any reason, the Court proposes to grant interim injunction without issuing notice on account of some special circumstances, it is necessary that the Court should record reasons therefor. It is the proviso that makes it mandatory on the part of the Court to give reasons with reference to the circumstances that compelled the Court to come to the conclusion (hat time taken in serving the notice would defeat the very purpose of granting the injunction. Therefore, any order passed granting injunction without giving the reasons for invoking the exception is vitiated.

( 3 ) THAT apart, the importance attached to the issuance of notice to the opposite side is emphasised by rule 3-A, which runs as under:"3. A Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days: Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted, and where it is unable to do so, it shall record its reasons for such inability. "rule 3 A has been added by Amendment Act 1 of 1976 which came into effect from 1-2-1977. It specifically provides that if an injunction was granted without notice, the Court shall endeavour to finally dispose of the application within 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted and if the Court is unable to do so, the Court shall record its reasons for such inability. Therefore, the emphasis is always on giving reasons.

( 4 ) A Bench of this Court had also an occasion to deal with a similar question in Balaiah vs. Aravindanagar Co-Op, Housing Society The Bench keeping in view the amended provisions of Rule 3 observed as under:"nonetheless the Legislature in requiring the Court under the amended Rule 3 of Order 39 to record the reasons sought to ensure that the Court exercised the power of issuing injunction ex parte only upon its coming to the conclusion that the delay would defeat the object of granting the injunction it was not vesting the Court with any new or additional power. The power to grant a temporary injunction and the circumstances in which temporary injunction could be granted are stated in rules 1 and 3 of Order 39 C. P. C. "in view of this decision and also in the light of the earlier discussion, we are of the opinion that the order of the lower Court is not sustainable as it has not given any reasons. The Order merely refers to the peru