Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, NYAPATHY VIJAY, JJ.
Navuluri Suseela Devi and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sri Satyanarayana Educational Society and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 406 Of 2024
Decided On : 04-07-2024
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Injunction - The court must record reasons for granting an ex parte injunction without notice to the opposite party, as mandated by the proviso to Rule 3. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to statutory requirements to ensure fairness in judicial proceedings. (Paras 7-10)
(B) The court found that the impugned order lacked the requisite reasons, thus violating the statutory mandate, leading to the setting aside of the order and allowing the appeal. (Paras 11-17)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought a decree for damages against the defendants and filed an application for an interim injunction to prevent further damage to the college premises. The trial court issued an ex parte injunction without recording reasons.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the lack of reasons in the impugned order was contrary to the statutory requirement, necessitating its setting aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's order complied with the statutory requirement of recording reasons for an ex parte injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the requirement to record reasons is not a mere formality but a necessary condition for granting an ex parte injunction, ensuring that the rights of the parties are protected.
Result: The impugned order dated 10.05.2024 is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)
1. Heard Sri Vamsi Krishna B., learned counsel representing Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and the appellants are the defendant Nos.1 and 3 respectively in the suit O.S.No.40 of 2024 pending in the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole.
3. Plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree against defendants/ present appellants for the following reliefs:
(b) Costs of the suit
(c) For any other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court as deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. The plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.358 of 2024 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., restraining the defendants from causing further damage to the college premises and interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof.
5. Learned trial Court by the order under challenge dated 10.05.2024 issued ex parte ad-interim injunction while issuing notice to the defendants/appellants directing compliance of Order 39 Rule 3(a) C.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order dated 10.05.2024 is without recording reasons and contrary to the mandate of Rule 3 of Order 39 C.P.C.
7. Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C., reads as under:
Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving 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, and require the applicant- (a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with-
(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application;
(ii) a copy of the plaint; and
(iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and
8. A bare reading of proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C., shows that where it is proposed to grant injunction without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall record reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 (3) SCC 161, on the power of grant of injunctions, at the stage of without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected held that when the Statute itself requires reasons to be recorded, the Court cannot ignore that.
10. Paras 32 to 34 of the order of Shiv Kumar Chadha (1supra) reads as under:
The court must record reasons for granting an ex parte injunction without notice, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, ensuring fairness in judicial proceedings.
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements for granting ex parte injunctions is not optional but mandatory, and failure to adhere to these requirements invalidates the injunct....
Non-compliance with statutory requirements for an ex parte injunction renders the order invalid, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural mandates.
Non-compliance with the conditions of an ex parte injunction under Order 39, Rule 3 CPC renders the injunction invalid, necessitating prompt judicial action.
The trial Court must provide reasoned orders when dealing with applications for temporary injunctions, particularly in urgent cases, and should not simply issue mechanical orders without assessment.
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
Injunctions without notice require rigorous justification and must adhere to procedural safeguards, emphasizing the necessity of recording reasons for ex parte orders to uphold fair judicial process.
Temporary injunction – When ex-parte temporary injunction is granted, defendant has right to file application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC and seek for vacating the same.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
