The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. in granting ad-interim injunction and the maintainability of a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 25.02.2008 made in I.A.No.3252 of 2008 in O.S.No.1244 of 2008 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The facts are as follows: The defendants in O.S.No.1244 of 2008 are the petitioners before this court. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.1244 of 2008 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, against the revision petitioners herein, praying for a judgment and decree and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the portions of the property situated at Old No.2/New No.3 Kummallamman Koil Street, Kilpauk, Chennai 10. Along with the suit, the respondent herein, as plaintiff filed I.A.No.3252 of 2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. for a temporary injunction. The trial court by order dated 25.02.2008, granted ad-interim injunction till 3. 2008 and aggrieved by the same, the defendants in the suit filed the above revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the entire record including the order challenged in this Civil revision petition.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners submits that a cryptic order has been passed by the trial court granting ad-interim injunction without giving reasons and therefore, the mandatory provision of Order 39 Rule 3 has been violated. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners, the ad-interim injunction granted by the trial court is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Civil revision petition itself is not maintainable as the revision petitioners have an effective alternative remedy of approaching the trial court by filing a vacate stay petition and therefore, this court cannot entertain the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following decisions:

1. A.I.R 1954 SC 215 (Waryam Singh and another Vs Amarnath and another)

2. 1977(2) SCC 437 (Trimbak Gangadhar Telang and another Vs Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide and others)

3. A.I.R. 2000 SC 3032 (A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs Chellappan and others)

4. 2003(6) SCC 641 (STATE Through Special Cell New Delhi Vs Navjot Sandhu alias Afshan Guru and others)

5. (2006)12 SCC 148 (Anil Kumar Vitthal Shete and others Vs State of Maharashtra and another)

6. (2007)2 SCC 275 (Ajay Bansal Vs Anup Mehta and others)

7. 2007(3) L.W. 515 (Ganapathy Subramanian Vs S. Ramalingam & 23 others)

8. 2007(3) C.T.C. 662 (S. Rangarajan and 2 others Vs M/s. Nathans Foundation Pvt. Ltd. and 6 others)

6. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citations.

7. The crux of the argument of the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioners is that, under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C., if an application is filed for an interim injunction, pending disposal of the suit, the normal practice is to order notice to the other side and if the court decides to grant an ex-parte order of interim injunction, then, the Court shall record the reasons under Rule 3 Order 39 C.P.C. According to the learned Senior counsel, such reasons were not given in the present case and therefore, the Order could be challenged straightway under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. To decide this issue, it is useful to refer to the order passed by the trial court which is under challenge before this court.

"Order Dated: 22. 2008:

Heard. Plaint and documents perused. The petitioner/plaintiff has got a prima facie case. If interim injunction is not granted the petitioner/plaintiff will be put to much hardship and irreparable loss. Ad-interim injunction is