The Court must strictly follow the procedure prescribed in Order 39, C.P.C. while granting and extending ex-parte injunctions. The party seeking an ex-parte injunction must serve notice of the application and the ex-parte injunction order on the opposite party immediately after the order is passed.

.1. Defendants 1 to 6 in O.S.No.9384 of 1994 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras have filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order in I.A.No.7168 of 1995 in the said suit, “extending the exparte injunction and adjourning the case to 21-7-1995”. The said suit filed by the respondents herein, who are Pandian Educational Board and its alleged office bearers, is for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants in the suit (strangely including defendants 7 and 8 who are Director of Technical Education and State Bank of India respectively and who are not parties herein) from causing any disturbance to the plaintiffs in the management of the said Pandian Educational Board of Tirupattur which runs Pandian Polytechnic Institute at Tirupattur. The plaint in the said suit is dated 21-10-1994. The above said I.A.No.7168 of 1995 sought for a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., pending disposal of the suit, against defendants 1 to 6, restraining them from functioning arbitrarily, and independently without concurrence and participation of the plaintiffs, in the administrative affairs of the said Board or restraining them from preventing the plaintiffs from participating in the said administrative affairs.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners mainly made two submissions. The first submission is, the Court below has grossly erred in not following Order 39 Rule 3 and 3A, C.P.C. in passing the ex-parte order of injunction originally on 28-4-1995 and extending it a number of times till July, 1995 despite the fact that the respondents herein had not even served notice of the LA. and its abovesaid order dated 28-4-1995 on the petitioners herein and despite the fact that the petitioners herein had filed their counter on 9-6-1995 together with I.A.No. 8268 of 1995 for vacating the said ex-parte injunction.

3. The second submission is about the reprehensible conduct of the respondents herein exhibited in so many ways, which are detailed in my discussion that follows. (According to learned Counsel for petitioners, the said conduct is reflected in the respondents’ suppression of prior proceedings and in not taking care to give notice of the abovesaid I.A.No.7168 of 1995 and the ex-parte injunction order passed therein on 28-4-1995 to the petitioners herein and in bringing forward the abovesaid suit in the City Civil Court Madras when it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit.

4. Though learned Counsel for the respondents refuted these submissions, I should say that he could not argue anything seriously contra.

.5. I have considered the rival submissions. There are very good reasons, which I detail below for concurring with the abovesaid submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners. No doubt, when the above referred to ex-parte interim injunction was granted on 28-4-1995, the Court below gives some reason for passing the said order of injunction ex-parte. But, the Court below has not at all cared to conform to the Letter part of the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3, C.P.C., wherein it is provided that the Court, when it choose to pass ex-parte injunction, shall “require the applicant (a) to deliver to the opposite party immediately after the order granting of injunction.... a copy of the application for injunction together with (i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; (ii) a copy of the plaint; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies.... and (b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day , an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent.” (emphasis supplied).

6. In fact, in the counter that was filed in I.A.No.7168 of 1995, the specific averment in paragraph 12 thereof is that neither the suit summons, nor the copies of the documents and the notice in I.A.No.7168 of 1995 have been served on them “till