JUDGMENT:

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2022 and plaintiffs in OS.No.330 of 2021 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy under Article 227 of Constitution of India. This revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.152 of 2022 dated 07-03-2022, where under the Court below allowed the petition filed by the respondents/defendants No.3 to 7 under Section 151 C.P.C. and set aside the ex parte temporary injunction that was granted in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs.

2. As could be seen from the record, the petitioners herein have filed the main suit vide OS.No.330 of 2021 for declaration, partition and separate possession with some consequential reliefs. They have filed IA.No.1 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants. The trial Court having considered the prayer in the interlocutory application and after hearing the learned counsel of the petitioners/plaintiffs and on consideration of the documents filed along with the petition granted ex parte temporary injunction with a direction to the plaintiffs to comply Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C.

3. The respondents/defendants No.3 to 7 have filed a petition before the trial Court vide IA.No.152 of 2022 under Section 151 C.P.C. along with two unopened postal covers and one opened postal cover and submitted that the plaintiff failed to comply Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. as they failed to forward all the documents on which they relied before the trial Court and only few documents were sent to them and it amounts to violation of Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. and that the plaintiff played fraud on the Court, thereby, sought for setting aside the injunction order. The trial Court having heard both parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioners herein failed to comply Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. and as such, the injunction is liable to be vacated and allowed the petition filed by respondents/defendant No.3 to 7 vide order dated 07-03-2022. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Revision Petition on the following grounds.

4. The order of the trial Court in IA.No.152 of 2022, where under the Court vacated the interim injunction is iniquitous and against the probabilities of the case. The learned trial Judge committed an error by allowing I.A.No.152 of 2022 on the ground that injunction was granted subject to compliance that the party who got the ex parte injunction shall send the copy of the plaint and copies of the documents filed along with the plaint by overlooking the fact that the same is directory in nature and not mandatory and therefore, does not invalidate the ex parte order.

5. The trial Court committed an error by not considering the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 39 since it is not mandatory and non-compliance thereof, though a serious matter, does not invalidate the ex parte injunction, thereby the trial Court ought to have decided the interlocutory application filed for injunction on merits rather than vacating the interim injunction on technicalities. The petitioners further claimed that the Court below committed an error in overlooking the fact that the petitioners sent the copy of plaint along with all important documents relied on by the petitioners to the respondents and that they had only 24 hours’ time to comply Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C., thereby, the petitioner had to send copies of plaint and document comprising 850 number of pages to 20 respondents which is impracticable.

6. They have also claimed that the Court below committed a patent error by coming to a conclusion that the Judgment relied on by the petitioners was from the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and it is not binding on the Court, overlooking the persuasive value of the said Judgment. The petitioners have claimed that the trial Court ought to have considered the copy of the plaint along with the documents were sent to the respondent and the other documents are only copies of sale deeds