( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant-appellants against the order passed ex parte, issuing a mandatory injunction against it to deliver the custody of the goods entrusted to it for purpose of transport by the plaintiff. The main grievance of the appellants is that the order was passed ex parte without complying with the provisions of O. 39, R. 3, C. P. C. , which are mandatory in nature.

( 2 ) ON a perusal of the order impugned herein, we find that although court below has tried to safeguard the interest of both the parties; but it has failed to record any reason as to why it became necessary to pass an ex parte injunction without serving notice on the respondent.

( 3 ) RULE 3 of O. 39, C. P. C. lays down that only in case where it appears to the Court that object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay it has no power to issue ex parte order of injunction. In that circumstance also the court has to record reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay. Sri R. K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent has however, submitted that even if reasons have not been, mentioned, yet there was material, which was enough fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document