Order granting injunction set aside.

Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.813 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi, are the revision petitioners.

2. Suit filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration that the petitioners are not entitled to any right of way or cart track through the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and for other reliefs.

3. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.2544 of 1998 for an order of interim injunction. Court below ordered notice on the injunction application and the defendants entered appearance on 21. 1999, on the day, when the case was posted for objection of the petitioners, they sought adjournment. Lower court did not grant adjournment, but passed the following order:

“This petition is filed under O.39, Rule 1 and Sec.151, C.P.C. praying to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from taking their carts and cattle through plaint ‘A’ schedule lands till the disposal of the suit.

Counter of respondents 1 to 3 not filed. Petition is allowed. No costs.”

The same is challenged in C.R.P.No.1394 of 1999.

4. After said order, petitioners moved I.A.No.330 of 1999 under Secs.141, 151 and O.9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Lower court dismissed that application on the ground that the provision applicable is O.39, Rule 4 and correct provision of law is not stated therefore, the same is liable to be rejected. The same is challenged in C.R.P.No.1393 of 1999.

5. At the time, when the matter came up for admission learned Judge of this Court, ordered status quo.

6. I heard learned counsel on both sides.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order, granting injunction is nullity since statutory provisions have not been complied with.

8. After hearing the counsel on both sides, I feel that the order of the lower court is liable to be interfered with.

9. In Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , (1993)3 S.C.C. 161 their Lordships considered when an order of injunction is to be granted. In para.30 of the judgment, their Lordships held thus:

“Grant of injunction is within the discretion of the court and such discretion is to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of temporary injunction is, thus, to maintain the status quo. The court grants such relief according to the legal principles ex debito justitiae. Before any such order is passed the court must be satisfied that a strong prima facie case has bene made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him.”

In the same decision, in paras.34 and 35, their Lordships further reiterated that court also must record its reasons for granting injunction. It is true that in paras.34 and 35, their Lordships dealt with the power of court while granting ex parte order of injunction. But, according to me, the same principle have to be applied in this case also when the court is granting injunction only because the defendant did not file his objection. Paras.34 and 35 of judgment also read thus:

“34. The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of O.39 of the Code. Before the proviso aforesaid was introduced, Rule 3 said, “the court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite-party.” The proviso was introduced to provide a condition, where court proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite-party, being of the opinion that the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated by delay. The condition