The importance of a reasoned and qualitative order while granting ex parte injunction and the need for litigants to exhaust all available remedies before seeking constitutional remedy.

This Civil Revision petitioners/respondents 6 to defendants 6 to 9 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved against one order dated 27. 2008 passed in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 in O.S.No.370 of 2008 by the District Munsif, Ambattur in granting ad interim injunction in favour of the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff.

2. The first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has filed No.1195 of 2008 praying for an order of an ad interim injunction raining respondents/defendants, their men, agents, and servants and persons claiming through them from in any manner interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition mentioned party etc.

.3. The trial Court in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 on 27. 2008 has issued the following Order:

.“Heard. Document perused. Prima Facie case made out. Ad interim injunction granted till 8. 2008. Notice to the respondent by then. The petitioner is directed to comply with Order 39 Rule 3(a) C.P.C. Proof of service to be filed”.

.4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/R6 to R9/D.6 to D.9 urges before this trial Court that the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1195 of 2008 on 27. 2008 is based on non-application of mind and that the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and suit documents filed, in proper perspective and it has not recorded as to whether the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has filed proof of service in regard to the compliance of Order 39, Rule 3(a) C.P.C. Further, the hearing of the application ought to have been advanced by the trial Court and that the trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in proper manner by adjourning the application to advance the hearing to 19. 2008 when that application has since been filed on 9. 2008. Moreover, the trial Court Judge has ignored the facts and circumstances under which the interim injunction has been obtained by the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff when particularly, it was brought to the knowledge of the trial Court that an advocate by name Mr. Sampath has represented the revision petitioners before the Court without any authorization to do so by the revision petitioners and in any event, the ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court is opposed to the principles of law and therefore, prays for allowing of this Civil Revision petition to prevent aberration of justice.

5. According to the learned counsel of the revision petitioners, the trial Court has perused only the photo copies of documents before passing the interim order of ad interim injunction in O.A.No.1195 of 2008 and that the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has not filed the original documents and he relied on the photo copy of Settlement Deed and the order passed by the trial Court cannot stand in law.

6. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioners cites before this Court the decision in the case of Akbar Ali and 2 Others v. Alla Pitchai (1999) Supp MLJ 168 : 2000-1-LW 842 wherein, this Court has inter alia observed that “Failure of lower appellate Court to enter a finding as regards balance of convenience and prima facie case while granting interim injunction, the said order is without jurisdiction”.

7. He also relies on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Era Educational Trust and Another AIR 2000 SC 1573 : (2000) 5 SCC 57 : (2000) 3 MLJ 32, whereunder the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that even if the Order 39 of C.P.C. would not be applicable at the stage of granting interim relief in a petition under Articles 226 to 227 of the Constitution, but at the same time various principles laid down under Order 39 for granting ad interim or interim reliefs are required to be taken into consideration.

.8. Yet another decision in the case of E.K. Palanisamy v. A.M. Murugesan and six Others 1999-2-LW 142, has been relied on the side of the Revision Petitioners wherein, this Court has inter alia held that the lower Court has exercised is discretion illegally in granting interim injunction a