The main legal point established in the judgment is that dispatching notices by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due and filing an affidavit in compliance would amount to sufficient compliance with the service of notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC.

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Docket Order dt.20.06.2022 in IA.No.94 of 2022 in OS.No.386 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as being illegal and perverse.

2. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants, restraining the Respondent/ defendants, their agents, etc., from interfering with the peaceful, physical, possession of the Petitioner/Plaintiff’s suit schedule property.

3. Along with the suit, the petitioner had also filed IA.No.94 of 2022 seeking temporary injunction The Court below by Docket Order dt.13.06.2022 granted ex-parte temporary ad-interim injunction till 20.06.2022 directing the petitioner/plaintiff to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC to cause service of notices to the respondents personally by the said date, failing which there shall not be any extension. On 20.06.2022, the Court below dismissed the application filed for extension of the temporary injunction observing that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order of serving notices to all the respondents.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, this Revision is filed.

5. On this Court taking up this Civil Revision Petition for admission, initially it was submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioner that though they had obtained an exparte ad-interm temporary injunction on 13.06.2022, the conditional order of the Court below was not completed within the stipulated time and notices to the Respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC could only be sent on 15.06.2022. As the mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC were not complied with, this Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 had affirmed the docket order dt 20.06.2022, observing that order of the Court below does not suffer from any irregularity.

6. While so, the counsel for the Petitioner had filed I.A.No.1 of 2022, before this Court seeking review of the order dated 04.11.2022. During the course of hearing, the Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that due to lack of proper instructions he had wrongly stated that the conditional order dt. 13.06.2022 was complied on 15.06.2022. However, by way of filing additional documents it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner had infact sent notices to the Respondents in the suit, within the prescribed time and had also filed compliance affidavit before the Trial Court on 14.06.2022 vide S.R.No.228 of 2022. By taking note of the Compliance Affidavit as filed before the Trial Court this Court vide order dated 02.12.2022 had recalled the order dt. 04.11.2022 and restored the Civil Revision Petition for further consideration.

7. Petitioner contends that the court below erred in dismissing the application for extension of the ad-interim injunction order dt. 13.06.2022 observing that the Petitioner had failed to serve notice on all the respondents even though he had taken out notices to all the respondents by registered post with acknowledgement due on 14.06.2022 well within the time prescribed under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC filed the compliance affidavit into the Court vide S.R.No.228 of 2022.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to Rule 7 of the Civil Rules of Practice contends that as per the said rule he is required to send notices to the Respondents and not its actual delivery on the respondents/defendants and the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application on the ground of non-service of notice.

9. I have taken note of the submissions as made above.

10. The issue for consideration by this Court is, in order to constitute service of notice Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC would dispatch of notice by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due be sufficient or can it be treated as compliance only when there was actual delivery to the addressee. In order to appreciate this issue, it would be appropriate to re