Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
B.S. Walia, J.
Hari Chand - Appellant
Versus
Panchayat Mohalla Soodan - Respondent
CR No. 8999 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-08-2018
Order 39, Rule 3 and 4 CPC require the court to direct notice to the opposite party before granting an injunction and allow for the discharge, variation, or setting aside of an injunction order. Proviso to Order 39, Rule 3 CPC requires the applicant to deliver or send a copy of the application for injunction, affidavit, plaint, and relevant documents to the opposite party. Non-compliance with these provisions can result in the vacation of an ex parte injunction order. The court cites precedents that emphasize the mandatory nature of these provisions and the consequences of non-compliance.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is challenging the order of the Civil Judge dismissing their application to vacate an ex parte interim injunction order. The petitioner argues that the injunction order was granted without compliance with the mandatory provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC. The petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order and vacate the ex parte interim injunction order.
Finding of the Court:
The court examines the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 and 4 CPC, which require the court to direct notice to the opposite party before granting an injunction and allow for the discharge, variation, or setting aside of an injunction order. The court finds that the learned trial court did not record reasons for granting the ex parte injunction and did not require compliance with the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC. The court cites precedents that emphasize the mandatory nature of these provisions and the consequences of non-compliance. The court concludes that the ex parte injunction order should be vacated due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC, including the delivery of documents to the opposite party, can result in the vacation of an ex parte injunction order. The court must record reasons for granting an ex parte injunction and ensure compliance with the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC. Failure to comply with these requirements deprives the opposite party of an opportunity to have an earlier hearing on merits and renders the ex parte order of injunction inoperative.
Result: The court sets aside the ex parte interim injunction order and directs the learned Civil Judge to consider the application for injunction after ensuring compliance with the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC and giving both parties an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasizes that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC renders the ex parte injunction order inoperative.
JUDGMENT
B.S. Walia, J. - Challenge in this revision petition is to order dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 06.11.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in Civil Suit No.CS-2633 of 2007 titled as "Panchayat Mohalla Soodan vs. Hari Chand" dismissing application dated 18.07.2017 (Annexure P-4) filed by the defendant-petitioner to vacate the ex parte interim injunction order dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) on account of non compliance with the mandatory provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC. Prayer is for setting aside the impugned order and for vacating the ex parte interim injunction order dated 07.07.2017 for non compliance of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC by allowing the application (Annexure P-4).
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are that civil suit titled as "Panchayat Mohalla Soodan vs. Hari Chand" was filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming possession of suit property as also injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant, his agents, attorneys, associates from making any change in any manner in the suit property. Along with the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with section 151 CPC for the grant of ad interim injunction for restraining the petitioner/defendant, his agents, attorneys, associates from raising any construction and making any change in the suit property in any manner during the pendency of the suit.
3. The aforesaid suit along with application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with section 151 CPC came up for hearing before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana on 07.07.2017 on which date the learned Civil Judge passed an ex parte ad interim injunction/order of status quo. Operative part of the order dated 07.07.2017 is reproduced as under:
"From the documents placed on record, a prima facie case is made out in favour of plaintiff and in case relief of ex parte interim injunction is not granted, the purpose of filing suit will be defeated. So at this stage, parties to the suit are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession otherwise in due course of law, subject to compliance of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC within 24 hours and subject to the service of the defendant till 10.08.2017 and in case plaintiff fails to get the service effected upon the defendant, the ex parte order of status quo shall stands vacated automatically."
4. The petitioner/defendant filed an application dated 18.07.2017 (Annexure P-4) for vacating the ex parte interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff as also initiation of proceedings against the respondent/plaintiff under Section 340 Cr.PC on the ground that ex parte injunction was granted before issuing notice to the defendant and requiring compliance with the provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC within 24 hours and further it was categorically mentioned that in case of failure of compliance, the ex parte stay order granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff would stand vacated automatically. Grievance is also that order dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) was bereft of any reasons whatsoever for the grant of ex parte injunction which was otherwise mandatorily required to be given in terms of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC. It was further alleged in the application that the envelope which was dispatched by the respondent/plaintiff allegedly in compliance of order dated 07.07.2017 dispatched by the petitioner/defendant through counsel weighed merely 15 grams each, that one of the envelopes was opened by the petitioner/defendant and was found containing merely a copy of the application for interim injunction whereas the other envelope was retained intact and placed before the learned Lower Court along with application for vacating ex parte injunction order dated 07.07.2017 for non compliance of Order 39, Rule 3 CPC. It was further averred that on inspection it transpired that the plaint itself ran into 10 pages while
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
