ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J.
Vaitla Rama Murthy and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Marisetty Satyanarayana – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.755 of 2025
Decided on 28.3.2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 – Suit seeking grant of ad-interim injunction pending disposal of suit – It becomes duty of Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not – Courts should go through averments made by the party in supporting affidavit and also pleadings and documents filed in support of case of plaintiffs – When a prima facie case is made out, Courts must grant temporary injunction and see that plaintiff is not dispossessed in meanwhile – Even whereCourt is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date – When there is urgency in the matter attitude of Courts in posting the matter to a longer date, defeat purpose of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
Result:Civil Revision Petition disposed of with observation.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the o order dated 28.01.2025 passed in I.A.N. No.98 of 2025 in O.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kovur, West Godavari (for short “the trial Court”).
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit inn O.S. No.19 of 2025. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant, his men, agents and whoever acts on his behalf from ever interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner and for costs. The Suit was filed before the trail Court on 24.01.2025 along with I.A. No.98 of 2025 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC praying to grant ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The plaintiffs in their affidavit, clearly stated that, the defendant, without having any right, tried to dispossess their men in the plaint schedule properties, thereby interfering with peaceful possession. The said I.A. was heard on 28.01.2025 and the trial Court has passed the following order:—
“Heard the petitioner counsel. Issue urgent notice to respondent TC & RP on process. Call on 27.02.2025.”
3. On a perusal of the above, it is observed that, when the suit was filed on 24.01.2025 it is not clear under what circumstances the matter was heard on 28.01.2025. Now the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2025 in ordering Urgent notice to the respondent.
4. Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Perused the material on record.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lower Court ought to have considered the urgency in the matter and that there is threat of dispossession of the petitioners from the suit schedule property.
It is pertinent to mention here Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is as follows.
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 plaintiff 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 the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
6. The above referred provision enables the Court to grant temporary injunction even without issuing notice to the respondents. The above provision has been made with an intention to preserve the property as it is. When any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may grant a temporary injunction. Of course, the plaintiffs have to establish prima facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not.
7. The Courts should go through the averments made by the party in the supporting affidavit and also the pleadings and documents filed in support of the case of the plaintiffs. When
Injunction – It becomes duty of Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not – When a prima facie case is made out, Courts must grant temporary injunction.
The trial Court must provide reasoned orders when dealing with applications for temporary injunctions, particularly in urgent cases, and should not simply issue mechanical orders without assessment.
Injunctions without notice require rigorous justification and must adhere to procedural safeguards, emphasizing the necessity of recording reasons for ex parte orders to uphold fair judicial process.
The trial court must provide reasoning when deciding applications for temporary injunctions and cannot merely issue notices without addressing the merits of the request.
A defendant in a suit for permanent injunction cannot file a petition for temporary injunction against the plaintiff seeking to prevent interference with possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule....
Trial courts must evaluate all materials presented in applications for injunctions and provide clear reasoning for their decisions, especially when considering ad-interim orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.