The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of ad-interim injunction without recording reasons for the grant violated the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was not sustainable.

1. Defendants in O.S.No.293 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2001 in I.A.No. 777 of 2001 in the said suit, has filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the said suit (O.S.No.293 of 2001) before the Sub Court, Cuddalore against the defendants/petitioners herein for declaration declaring that the Church of Holy Epiphany, Cuddalore is an independent entity outside the control of the Church of South India and that the suit property belongs absolutely to the Church of Holy Epiphany, and restraining the defendants, their men, agents or any person claiming under them by a decree of permanent injunction from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property and their right to administer the affairs of The Church of Holy Epiphany. Pending suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.777 of 2001 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the second respondent therein from acting as Pastor (Presbyter) of the Church of Holy Epiphany and the first respondent from appointing any other person as Pastor (Presbyter) of the Church of Holy Epiphany. The learned Subordinate Judge, by an order dated 29.11.2001, after hearing the arguments of the petitioners side and perusing the records and after holding that they made out a prima facie case, granted ad interim injunction against the second respondent therein till 20.12.2001 and ordered Notice to the respondents. Against the said order, the respondents in that application preferred the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents.

3. Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, after drawing my attention to the relevant provisions, namely, Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by pointing out that inasmuch as the learned Subordinate Judge has not recorded any reason for the grant of interim order, the same is violative of the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C. and not sustainable. He also points out that in such a circumstance, the petitioners herein are entitled to seek constitutional remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of revision before this Court. On the other hand, Mr. N.D. Behetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently contended that the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable since the petitioners herein have effective remedy either by filing a petition for vacation of the injunction or filing an appeal before the appellate court accordingly prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions.

4. Since the issue arose in this Revision relates to interpretation of Order 39, Rules 1 and 3 C.P.C., it is useful to refer the same:-

"Order 39, Rule 1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.-Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-

a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or

(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors,

(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiffs or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until disp