An ad-interim injunction granted in the midst of hearing of the petition without considering the essential requirements of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC is not valid.

CRP.PD.No.2102 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :11.01.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

CRP (PD) No.2102 of 2021

and

CMP Nos.15983 & 15985 of 2021

1. R. Murthy

2. M. Elangovan

3. P.Prabhu

4. M. Sakthivel

... Petitioners

Vs

R. Murthy

... Respondent

Prayer: The Civil Revision petition filed under Section 227 of the

Constitution of India, against the order granting interim injunction dated

04.09.2021 made in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.165 of 2021 on the file of

the learned District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

For petitioners

... Mr. N. Manoharan

For respondent

... Mr.M. Guruprasad

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.PD.No.2102 of 2021

O RDER

This Civil Revision directed against an ad-interim injunction order

passed by the trial Court in the midst of hearing application for injunction.

2. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.165 of

2021 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, seeking

permanent injunction, restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with

his possession, except under due process of law.

3. The claim of the respondent in the suit is that he is in possession of

the property as tenant and he has been registered as cultivating tenant of the

suit property on 16.11.1987. This claim is being resisted by the petitioners

herein contending that they had purchased the property for valuable

consideration and they have been in possession of the property. Along with

the suit an application in I.A.No.20/2021 was filed seeking temporary

injunction. The learned District Munsif ordered notice returnable by

03.08.2021. Thereafter, counter was filed and in the process of enquiry, on

04.09.2021, the learned District Munsif granted Ad-Interim injunction till

09.09.2021. However, the application was not taken up and disposed of on

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.PD.No.2102 of 2021

09.09.2021, the interim order came to be extended. While the suit in

O.S.No.165 of 2021 was filed before the District Munsif Court,

Gobichettipalayam on 16.07.2021, the defendants in the suit, namely, the

petitioners herein, filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2021 on the file of the Sub-

Court, Gobichettipalayam seeking declaration of title and permanent

injunction on 19.07.2021. They also sought for temporary injunction

restraining the sole defendant therein, namely, the respondent herein from

interfering with their possession of the property. The said suit is also

pending.

4. The application, seeking transfer of the suit for permanent

injunction pending before the District Munsiff Court to the Sub-Court, to be

tried along with O.S.No.117 of 2021, is also pending before the Principal

District Judge, Erode.

5. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would vehemently contend that the trial Court has not considered the

essential requirements of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC while granting ad interim

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.PD.No.2102 of 2021

injunction in the midst of hearing of the petition.

6. Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

would submit that the learned Trial Judge, in the course of hearing, felt that

the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and since he also felt that the

respondents in the injunction petition are attempting to drag on the

proceedings, he granted an order of injunction.

7. On 16-07-2021, when I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.165 of 2021

was moved, the learned trial judge felt that the petitioner had not made out a

prima facie case and ordered notice returnable by 03-08-2021. Thereafter,

he ought to have heard the parties in full and disposed of the application

either way, he ought not to have granted an order of injunction for a limited

period. The said order of injunction has also been stayed by this Court