The mandatory requirement of Order 39, Rule 3, CPC, necessitates the recording of reasons for the opinion and consideration of the prima facie case and balance of convenience before granting an injunction without notice.

1. Petitioner is an Association. They are the third respondent in I.A.Nos.18317 and 18318 of 1999 in O.S. No. 7331 of 1999 of the file of XVIII Assistant Judge, Civil City Court, Chennai. The above revisions are filed against the ex parte interim orders passed under Order 39, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 19.11.1999.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this order is passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of order 39, Rule 3, CPC without giving reasons. It is further submitted that on the plaint averments, petitioner is not a member of the Association and that his application for membership has been rejected. Whileso, an injunction in the nature of a mandatory order to the respondent herein not to interfere from using the facilities as a member for his family members was granted erronerousely. Besides, the learned City Civil Court Judge also passed an interim order directing the respondents to accept the payment. Thus, according to him, the learned Judge did not consider the matter before issuing an ex parte interim injunction orders.

3. The respondent appearing as a party-in-person raised the following points:

According to him, the civil revision petitions are not maintainable without impleading the order necessary parties who are parties in the I.A. Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioner has not countered the various objections raised by the respondent herein in his affidavit filled in support of the I.A. Especially, the copy of the admission register was omitted to be furnished for scrutiny. According to him, the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and manipulated the records to deny the legitimate and legal right of the respondent to become the member and continue as a member based on the permission granted earlier.

4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and considered the matter.

5. The order passed by the learned judge does not satisfy the requirement of Order 39, Rule 3,CPC. The Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, in a series of decisions, have directed the subordinate Courts that they should pass speaking orders in terms of Order 39, Rule 3, CPC. In all those cases, it has been held that the requirement it mandatory that before granting an injunction without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall record reasons for its opinion and that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay. This mandatory requirement and the ingredients are lacking in this order. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirement of law. In Sri Suryanarayana Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. Padmakumar, 1995 (II) CTC 323: 1992 (2) LW 266, Srinivasan, J. (as he then was), following the two Supreme Court judgments in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartic Das, 1994 SCC 225 and Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 (3) SCC 1611, held that interlocutory orders of this nature are wholly unsustainbale and without jurisdiction and they have to be set aside. The very same learned judge (as he then was), in R.I & C. Syndicate Ltd. v. Vairava Prakasam, 1988 (2) LW 179, deprecated the practice of granting such order of injunction.

6. From the arguments, it is seen that in the plaint averment itself, it is stated by the respondent that he received a letter dated 4.11.1999 informing that his application dated 30.9.1999 for admission of membership has been rejected by the managing Committee on 3.11.1999. Hence, they returned the cheque and the photographs of the petitioner. According to the respondent, such an order only be passed by an extraordinary geneary body supported by two-thirds majority. He has further stated in the plaint that the said order of the defendant rejecting the application is illegal. This has also been referred to in the cause of action paragraph. This has been referred to by the counsel for the petitioner stating that the averment of the pet