Trial courts must provide reasoned orders when extending injunctions and consider all relevant documents to ensure procedural fairness.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 3(a) and (b) - Appeal against the trial court's order extending interim injunction without adequate reasoning - The trial court failed to dispose of the interim application within the stipulated time and did not provide a speaking order, rendering its decision erroneous. (Paras 3, 7, 8)

(B) Interim Injunction - The court emphasized the necessity for trial courts to provide reasons when extending or granting injunctions and to consider all relevant documents before making decisions. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendants regarding possession of property based on an unregistered agreement of sale. The trial court initially granted an ad-interim injunction but later extended it without proper reasoning.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the trial court's order to be patently erroneous and directed a timely resolution of the interim application.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the trial court's extension of the interim order was justified given the lack of a speaking order and consideration of documents.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court ruled that the trial court must provide a reasoned order when extending injunctions and consider all filed documents, emphasizing procedural fairness.

Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGEMENT

This appeal is filed against the orders dated 19.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.95 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2024 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff.

3. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court has not disposed of I.A within the specified time as contemplated under Order 39 Rule (3) (a) (b) CPC provision. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2/defendant No.2 filed counter but not pointed out any reason for not disposing the I.A within stipulated time and extended the interim order on 28.03.2024. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court and remand the matter to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the I.A on merits.

4. It was further stated that O.S.No.20 of 2024 was filed by Sri Habeeb Mohsin/plaintiff against the defendant Nos.1 to 4 for permanent injunction in which he asked the Court to restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and he relied upon unregistered agreement of sale dated 14.02.2005 but no sale deed was executed.

5. Subsequently, along with the suit I.A.No.95 of 2024 is also filed for ad-interim injunction and accordingly an order was passed on 19.02.2024 as follows:

“Upon considering the averments of the petitioner, coupled with the documents filed there found prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner and this Court is inclined to grant ad-interim injunction against the respondents as prayed by the petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property till 01.03.2024 Issue urgent notices to respondent through Court and RPAD on payment of process.

Personal notice is permitted. Call on 01.03.2024”.

6. Subsequently, a counter was filed by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 on 04.03.2024 and mainly contended that in spite of disposing the I.A on merits by hearing both sides, the Trial Court extended the interim orders and passed the following docket order on 28.03.2024 as follows:

“I.A under Section 65-B with list of documents filed, I.A posted for arguments.

Call on 08.04.2024. Petitioner counsel reported not ready as documents given today its self and under Section 65-B, I.A he will file counter. Respondents counsel opposed grant of time and extension of any interim order. Hearing both sides, Interim order extended till 08.04.2024 and for arguments, call on 08.04.2024”.

7. In the order dated 19.02.2024 when the trial Court found that there was prima facie case, no reasons are assigned and it was not a speaking order. The documents filed by the plaintiff are not considered in the order and it was cryptic. Of course ad-interim injunction was granted till 01.03.2024 and notice was order under Order 39 Rule (3)(a)(b) CPC provisions.

8. Accordingly, after service of notice when the defendant no.2 herein filed the counter it is for the Court to hear both sides and to dispose of the I.A on merits but in spite of filing of the counter on 04.03.2024, the interim order was simply extended on the ground that counter is to be filed under Section 65-B and it was also mentioned that learned counsel for the petitioner is not ready but still the interim orders were extended without any reason or basis. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the Trial Court is patently erroneous and liable to be set aside.

9. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 28.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.95 of 2024 in O.S.No.20 of 2024 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam and the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the I.A.No.95 of 2024 within 20 days i.e., on or before 29.04.2024 by taking into consideration the counter filed by the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 after gi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(TS) 5812

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANAP.SREE SUDHA, JM/s. Sreenidhi Pearl Spaces LLP – AppellantVersusHabeeb Mohsin – RespondentCMA/200/2024

Trial courts must provide reasoned orders when extending injunctions and consider all relevant documents to ensure procedural fairness.

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
P.SREE SUDHA, J
M/s. Sreenidhi Pearl Spaces LLP – Appellant
Versus
Habeeb Mohsin – Respondent
CMA/200/2024