The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for timely disposal of injunction petitions and the requirement to avert routine adjournments without valid reasons, in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the National Litigation Policy.

The revision petition on hand is filed for a direction to direct the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai to dispose of the I.A.No.116 of 2018 in O.S.No.59 of 2018 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner contended that the petitioner is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.59 of 2018. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent for a permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties. An interim injunction was granted by the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, on 22.03.2018.

3. The learned counsel is of an opinion that the learned Principal District Munsif is granting adjournments without assigning any valid reason in a routine manner. The revision petitioner herein has already filed written statement in the suit as well as counter affidavit in the Interlocutory Application.

4. The learned counsel appearing before the Subordinate Court is repeatedly insisting the Court to dispose of the Interlocutory Application in view of the fact that interim injunction was obtained based on certain erroneous facts placed before the Court and therefore, the matter should be heard urgently by the Subordinate Court. In spite of the request made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants before the Subordinate Court, the Subordinate Court is granting adjournments in a routine manner, even without assigning any valid reason for granting such adjournments. Thus, the revision petitioner is constrained to move the present revision petition before this Court.

5. The present revision petition is taken up for final disposal on the ground that the relief sought for is a direction to direct the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, to dispose of the Interlocutory Application filed in I.A.No.116 of 2018 in O.S.No.59 of 2018. In view of the fact that the direction sought for is general in nature and already covered under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, more specifically, Order XXXIX Rule 3(A), this Court is inclined to pass the final order in this revision petition.

6. Order XXXIX Rule 3(A) enunciates that the Courts should dispose of the application for injunction within thirty days and also where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability.

7. Thus the provision is unambiguous. The Judicial Officer concerned is bound to dispose of the injunction petition within a period of 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted. In the event of any difficulty or otherwise, the same must be recorded at the time of granting further adjournments to the parties to the suit. In the absence of any such valid reason, it is to be construed that the injunction granted cannot be continued for an unspecified period of time.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly stated that in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [AIR 2018 SC 2039], as follows:

“35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is grant