Honble THOMAS, J.–Leave granted.

(2). When a plaintiff rushed to the civil Court for an ex-parte interim order of injunction against some of the defendants and obtained it, those defendants rushed to the High Court to get that order quashed. Both parties succeeded in their respective endeavour and now both of them accuse each other for the course adopted by the other. The appeal is by special leave at the instance of the plaintiff.

(3). The subject matter of the litigation is a property bearing Door Nos. 177 to 182 on the Big Street at Triplicane in Madras (now Chennai). At this stage and in this appeal it is unnecessary to narrate the facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint nor by the contesting first defendant in answer thereto regarding the right to the suit property. Suffice it to say that plaintiff claims to be a lessee under one S. Alagu (who is arrayed as 6th defendant in the suit) in respect of the property and on that strength he claimed to be in possession of the property. He alleged that the defendants 1 to 5 have been threatening to dispossess him.

(4). Appellants-plaintiff filed the suit on 25.6.1999 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from dispossessing him. Along with the institution of the suit he moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code) ``to pass an ad interim injunction restraining respondents 1 to 5 or their men or agents, or their representatives or any person claiming through them or under them from evicting the petitioner from the suit property other than by due process of law and to pass such further or other order or orders.

(5). On 29.6.1999 the Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Chennai passed the following ex-parte order on the said application:

``Heard. Documents perused. Rental receipt Document 11 to Document 47 proves that the petitioner is the statutory tenant and prima facie possession of the suit property. Though the property was leased out by R.6 on the basis of mortgage document 3, the petition is now in continuous possession of the property as tenant. Hence the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. In the interest of justice, it appears that R.1 to R.5 are restrained from evicting the petitioner from the suit property, except under the process of law. Notice by 25.8.1999. Ad interim injunction till then. Order 39 Rule 3 to be complied with. d Single Judge. He, therefore, set aside the injunction order ``for the clear transgression of the provisions of law and noted that this is the third suit filed in reference to the suit property and hence deprecated the grant of ex-parte injunction without notice. Though learned single Judge further declined to go into the other allegations, he has chosen to make the following observations also :

``However, prima facie, I am satisfied that these materials are relevant for consideration before granting ad interim injunction. As per the plaint and affidavit averments admit that the first respondent is occupying a vacant portion of 1670 sq.ft. and running paper business and charcoal. But there is no document to show that the first respondent is actually in possession and running such a business except the lease deed. Hence the ex-parte order is unsustainable. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Judge is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.

(8). After holding thus learned Single Judge directed the trial Court to take up the interlocutory application for injunction and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously.

(9). Sri Sivasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel contended that the High Court should not have entertained a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the respondent had two remedies statutorily available to him. First is that the respondent could have approached the trial Court for vacating, if not for any modification, of the interim ex-parte orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document