1. These appeals are directed against the order-dated 23.07.2008 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Sriangar, (for short "impugned order") whereby and whereunder an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order came to be granted in favour of the respondents.

2. It appears that respondents/ plaintiffs filed the first suit before Principal District Judge, Srinagar, came to be transferred to Munsiff (Sub-Registrar), Srinagar. The said court directed the official defendants/ appellants to issue tender documents to the plaintiffs. But no restraint order came to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants-appellants. Thereafter, plaintiffs/ respondents filed another suit before Principal District Judge, Srinagar, came to be transferred to 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, and an ex-parte restraint order came to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents and against the appellants/ Forest Corporation/ defendants.

3. Feeling aggrieved private defendants/ official defendants/ appellants have questioned the impugned order by the medium of these appeals.

4. Mr. Lone, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that appeals are not maintainable and it is practice of this Court and other Courts not to disturb the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction but to allow the trial court to decide the application for grant of ad-interim relief after hearing the parties. Further, argued that in case the argument will not weigh then the appeal be decided on merits.

5. Admittedly, the dispute is vis-a-vis tender and the eligibility conditions prescribed by the official respondents in the tender notice.

6. Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "Code") provides which orders are appealable. Order XLIII sub-rule (r) provides that an order under Rule 1, rule 2, rule 2(a), rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX of the Code are appealable. It is apt to reproduce Order XLIII rule (r) herein: -

"1. Appeals from orders

An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely: -

(r) An order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 2 (a), rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX."

7. It is nowhere provided that an ex-parte order passed under Order XXXIX rule 1, rule 2 of the Code is not appealable. It can safely be said and held that order of ad-interim injunction whether ex-parte or otherwise passed under Order XXXIX rule 1 and rule 2 of the Code is appealable. My this view is fortified by the Full Court Judgment of this Court in M/s Astral Traders v. M/s Haji Mohammad Shaban Dar and ors, reported as 1982 SLJ 404. It is apt to reproduce para 6 herein: -

"6. Every order of ad-interim injunction, whether exparte or otherwise, and whether made under Rules 1, 2 or 4 of Order 39, is on the plain terms of Cl. (r) of Rule 1 of order 43, appealable. There is no room for the argument that the appeal shall lie against only such orders passed under these Rules, as have been passed after hearing both the parties, and nor is there any scope for the argument that Rules 1, 2 and 4 of Order 39 postulate only those orders that are made after hearing both the sides."

8. The Apex Court in a case titled Kishore Kumar Khaitan and anr., vs. Praveen Kumar Singh reported as 2006 AIR SCW 1077 also laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 4 herein: -

"4. It is necessary to notice at this stage that in an original suit of this nature, it was not appropriate for the Additional District Judge to pass an order directing the parties to maintain status quo, without indicating what the status quo was. If he was satisfied that the appellant before him had made out a prima facie case for an ad interim ex parte injunction and the balance of convenience justified the grant of such an injunction, it was for him to have passed such an order of injunction."

9. Thus an order passed under Order 39 of the Code in ex-parte or after hearing the parties is appealable.

10. Now, the question is whether it is appropriate to decide the appeal on merits or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document