ORDER :

J. Nisha Banu, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/3rd defendant in the suit challenging the order dated 12.07.2019 passed in I.A. No. 173 of 2019 in O.S. No. 60 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the Court below has granted an interim order of injunction till 14.08.2019 and then, ordered notice to the petitioner/3rd defendant herein as well as 2nd and 3rd respondents herein/defendants 1 and 2.

2. It is seen that the first respondent herein as plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 60 of 2019 for partition of her 5/16 shares in the suit schedule properties. The suit properties are comprised of movable (40-Trailer Lorries and 23-Taurus Lorries) and immovable properties. Along with the plaint, the first respondent herein filed I.A. No. 173 of 2019 for interim injunction stating that the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 are trying to sell away the suit schedule properties and to create encumbrance over the same. The trial Court has granted interim injunction till 14.08.2019 stating that prima facie case made out and balance of convenience is in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff and thereafter, ordered notice. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/3rd defendant in the suit filed this petition.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/3rd defendant submitted that the suit properties are belonging to the Private Limited Company-M/s. Diamond Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., at Tuticorin. The first respondent/plaintiff has already filed a Company Petition No. 555 of 2019 before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, in respect of the same properties, in which the first respondent/plaintiff has prayed for interim relief of injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 4 therein from alienating the movable and immovable assets of the company and creating any further charge or encumbrance over same. Since the interim order was refused by the Tribunal, the first respondent/plaintiff, suppressing the above refusal by the Tribunal, has filed the suit in respect of the same properties seeking similar relief of injunction indirectly without impleading the above Company. As the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai, has already seized of the matter, there cannot be a parallel proceeding by way of suit. There is a legal bar of Civil jurisdiction against the trial Court by virtue of Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 and hence, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to grant interim order of injunction, which was denied by the Tribunal. He would further submit that Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C. mandates that when the Court proposes to grant an interim order of injunction without notice, the Court shall record reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay. In this case, the trial Court has failed to record any valid reasons for grant of ex parte interim injunction and hence, the interim order passed by the trial Court may be set aside. He would further submit that though there is an alternative remedy, this Civil Revision petition is maintainable, as the trial Court has passed the interim order in violation of the statutory requirements of Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C. Thus, he prayed to allow this revision petition.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting first respondent/plaintiff submitted that as against the impugned order, the petitioner can file appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. or he can file vacate stay petition. As there is alternative remedies, this Civil Revision Petition is not at all maintainable. He would further submit that the Company Petition has been filed for different reliefs, though the interim relief was sought for therein is similar to the relief sought for in I.A. No. 173 of 2019. The questions as to whether the similar relief has been sought for in the company petition and whether the suit is maintainable or not are the matters to be decided in the suit after trial. He would further submit that the