The court held that the appellate court had not erred in passing the stay order without serving notice on the caveator as the petitioner had refused to accept service of the notice and the appellate court had complied with the provisions of Order 3, Rules 2, 3, and 5, C.P.C. in serving the notice on the petitioner's appointed advocate.

Headnote:
CAVEAT - NOTICE - SECTION 148-A, C.P.C. - ORDER 3, RULES 2, 3 AND 5, C.P.C. - ORDER 43, RULE 1(R), C.P.C. - ORDER 39, RULES 1 AND 2, C.P.C. - SECTION 80(1) AND (2), C.P.C. - SUMMARY: The court discussed the legal provisions related to caveat, notice, and the procedure for filing an appeal against an order of temporary injunction. The court held that the order of the appellate court staying the operation of the impugned order of injunction was not beyond its jurisdiction and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief under Section 115 of the C.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of the appellate court staying the operation of an order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court. The petitioner argued that the appeal was not maintainable and that the appellate court had erred in passing the stay order without serving notice on the caveator.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appeal was maintainable and that the appellate court had not erred in passing the stay order. The court found that the petitioner had refused to accept service of the notice and that the appellate court had complied with the provisions of Order 3, Rules 2, 3, and 5, C.P.C. in serving the notice on the petitioner's appointed advocate.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeal was maintainable? 2. Whether the appellate court had erred in passing the stay order without serving notice on the caveator?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appeal was maintainable under Order 43, Rule 1(r), C.P.C. as the order appealed against was an order under Rule 3 of Order 39, C.P.C. 2. The court held that the appellate court had not erred in passing the stay order without serving notice on the caveator as the petitioner had refused to accept service of the notice and the appellate court had complied with the provisions of Order 3, Rules 2, 3, and 5, C.P.C. in serving the notice on the petitioner's appointed advocate.
Final Decision: The court rejected the revision petition and held that the order of the appellate court staying the operation of the impugned order of injunction was not beyond its jurisdiction and that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief under Section 115 of the C.P.C.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Maintainability of the Appeal: The court confirmed that the appeal was maintainable under the relevant procedural rules because it was filed against an order issued under the appropriate rules for temporary injunctions (!) (!) .
Service of Notice on Caveator: The appellate court had issued a notice to the caveator, but the caveator refused to accept service. Despite this, the court found that service was properly effected through the appointed advocate, in accordance with procedural provisions, and the caveator’s refusal did not invalidate the service (!) (!) (!) .
Order of Stay and Its Validity: The appellate court’s stay order was made ex parte and was within its jurisdiction. The stay was valid up to the specified date, after which it merged into the subsequent order issued on that date. The earlier stay order was not challenged separately and thus remained in effect until superseded (!) (!) .
Revision Petition and Court’s Jurisdiction: The court emphasized that revision jurisdiction under Section 115 is limited to procedural errors or breaches of law that prejudice the other party. The court found no such breach occurred, and the procedural formalities were duly observed (!) (!) .
Procedural Observations: The court noted procedural lapses, such as the failure to observe certain provisions during the issuance of temporary injunctions and the filing of subsequent suits. However, these lapses did not warrant interference under revision jurisdiction (!) .
Final Disposition: The revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the appellate court was upheld. The interim stay order was vacated, and costs were not awarded (!) .
Legal Principles on Procedural Compliance: The decision underscores that as long as procedural requirements are met and no breach of law occurs, orders are generally not subject to revision solely on procedural grounds. The importance of proper service, adherence to procedural rules, and the effect of subsequent orders are highlighted (!) (!) (!) .

These points summarize the court’s reasoning and the procedural considerations involved in this case.

Judgement

This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19-12-81 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, West Tripura at Agartala in Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 1981 against the order of ad interim injunction passed by the learned Munsiff, Agartala in Misc. Case No. 464 of 1981 arising out of T. S. No. 375 of 1981 restraining the defendant Tripura Public Service Commission (for short the Commission), Agartala from holding the personality test and recommending the names of the selected candidates in connection with the examination held by the Commission under Advertisement No. 4 of 1981 for recruitment to the vests of T. C. S. Grade-II. The suit was brought for declaration of the aforesaid examination as void and illegal and for perpetual injunction. On the petition for temporary injunction the learned Munsiff passed the ad interim order of injunction restraining the Commission from holding the personality test. Against this order an appeal was preferred on behalf of the defendant Commission before the learned Subordinate Judge, West Tripura at Agartala. The appeal was preferred on 19-12-81 and on the same date an application of caveat was admitted on behalf of the plaintiff before the learned Subordinate Judge. On 19-12-81 the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order regarding certified copy of the impugned order of the trial Court. He found that no certified copy was filed along with memorandum of appeal. However, it was recorded in the order that the appellant undertook to submit the certified cony of the order dated 18-12-81 passed by the learned Munsiff "in no loss of time". An order for registering Misc. Appeal was passed. The learned appellate Court also found on record that there was an endorsement on the memorandum of appeal and the stay petition praying for stay of the order of ad interim injunction passed by the trial Court to the effect that "the Advocate for the respondent could not be traced out in the Court compound and left for home at 3-15 P.M." This part of the order relates to the appellant being required "to put in requisite for serving notice upon the respondents." The learned appellate Court admitted the appeal in view of the submission as above and called for the records. He further ordered for issuing the notice upon the respondent fixing 21-12-81 for service return and for hearing the stay matter. The learned appellate Court also felt necessity of a notice to be served upon the caveator, The learned Court, however, after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant passed an ad interim order staying operation of the impugned order dated 18-12-81 till 21-12-81 as a special case for the ends of justice".

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition firstly argued that the appeal is not maintainable under O.43, R.1 (r), C.P.C. This provision of O.43 provides that appeal lies from an order under Rr.1 and 2 etc. of O.39, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner pointed out that the order appealed against fails under Rule 3 of O.39, C.P.C. for which there is no provision for appeal. The learned counsel for the Commission submitted that the order passed by the trial court regarding temporary injunction was passed under Rr.1 and 2 of O.39, C.P.C. and that being so the order is appealable. For shortening discussion on the point I would like to refer to the petition in this case wherein under para 1 the petitioner states that the plaintiff filed a Petition for temporary injunction before the learned Munsiff under O.39, Rr.1 and 2, C.P.C. So it is admitted by the petitioner that the order passed by the learned trial Court is appealable. My finding is also that the order is appealable. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision petition submitted that no certified copy of the impugned order has been filed along with the memorandum of appeal for which the appeal is not maintainable. In support he referred to the rulings-(1) reported in AIR 1929

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1982 Supreme(Gau) 46

GAUHATI HIGH COURTS. M. ALI, J.Sayam Ranjan Bhowmik -AppellantVersusTripura Public Service Commission -RespondentCivil Revn. No. 58 of 1981Decided On : 08-04-1982

Cases Referred (1)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
S. M. ALI, J.
Sayam Ranjan Bhowmik -Appellant
Versus
Tripura Public Service Commission -Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 58 of 1981
Decided On : 08-04-1982