2018 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 6103
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
S.H.VORA, J
GUJARAT STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS FEDERATION – Appellant
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THRU MANAGING DIRECTOR SONALBEHN MISHRA IAS – Respondent
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 292 of 2018 | CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 of 2018
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR AK CLERK(235)
For the Respondents: MR GM JOSHI(370)
A court must provide reasoned findings when granting injunctions to ensure adherence to procedural justice.
Headnote:In this judgment, the court analyzed the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC in the context of granting a permanent injunction in Civil Suit No.425 of 2017. The court found that the Trial Judge failed to provide requisite reasons for allowing the injunction application, and emphasized the necessity of documenting findings even in the absence of defendants. The main issues were framed around whether the plaintiff's application met the statutory requirements. The court concluded, stating that the appeal is partly allowed, directing the lower court to rehear the application and issue a reasoned order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context of appeal regarding injunction application. (Para 1) |
| 2. requirement for reasoned findings by the court. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. decision to re-hear and order for a reasoned judgment. (Para 4) |
ORDER
[1]
By way of present Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC, the appellants -original defendants challenge order dated 21.04.2017 passed below notice of motion Exh.6/7 in Civil Suit No.425 of 2017, whereby the learned Trial Judge allowed the notice of motion taken out by the respondent – plaintiff and granted permanent injunction in terms of para 13(a) and (b) of notice of motion application till final disposal of the suit.
[2]
Upon hearing submissions made at bar, it appears that the learned Trial Judge without recording any finding as to how ingredients of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 are proved by the respondent – plaintiff and without assigning any reasons, allowed the notice of motion application filed by the respondent – plaintiff. In Court’s considered opinion, the learned Trial Judge is bound to assign reasons while considering such application before coming to the conclusion that ingredients of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 stand established. In the matter when defendant is not present, even then the Court is bound to assign reasons.
[3]
Learned advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi appearing for the respondent – plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff has moved application for contempt proceedings and further the defendants have not filed application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC till date.
Irrespective of such contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.
Joshi appearing for the respondent – plaintiff, the Court is bound to decide injunction application within the scope of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with provisions contained in Specific Relief Act. So far as proceedings initiated by respondent – plaintiff for breach of order is concerned, same is required to be considered by the Court in accordance with law and same would not adversely affect, if notice of motion is re-heard by the learned Trial Judge and appropriate reasoned order is passed before accepting notice of motion taken out by the respondent – plaintiff.
[4]
Under the circumstances, present Appeal from Order is partly allowed with the direction to the learned Trial Judge to hear notice of motion Exh.6/7 afresh in Civil Suit No.425 of 2017 and pass reasoned order in accordance with law. With this observations and direction, present Appeal from Order and Civil Application stand disposed of.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
