THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1927 AND 1929 of 2023

COMMON ORDER

Since, the issue involved in both these Civil Revision

Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this

common Order.

C.R.P. No.1927 of 2023

2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.300 of 2023 in O.S. No.396 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District.

3. The revision petitioner herein is the 2^nd respondent in the underlying interlocutory application and defendant No.2 in the suit filed by the 1^strespondent herein vide O.S. No.396 of 2023

for declaration and perpetual injunction.

4. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to pass an order of ad-interim

injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

C.R.P. No.1929 of 2023

5. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 08.06.2023 passed in I.A.No.298 of 2023 in O.S. No.395 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District.

6. The revision petitioner herein is the 2^nd respondent in the underlying interlocutory application and defendant No.2 in the suit filed by the 1^strespondent herein vide O.S. No.395 of 2023 for declaration and perpetual injunction.

7. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC to pass an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property.

8. Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents/plaintiffs.

9. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as per their array in the present Revision Petitions.

10. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the respondent No.1 herein had filed the subject suit against the revision petitioner and another for the relief of declaration and injunction; that along with the suit, the respondent No.1 herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction; that the Court below had granted ad- interim injunction by passing the impugned order in both the suits without recording any reasons till filing of counter; and that the said order passed is contrary to the mandate under Order XXXIX Rule 1 C.P.C.

11. It is contended by the petitioner that in normal circumstances, the Court ought to have directed notice of the application to be given to the opposite party and in the event of the Court coming into conclusion that giving notice of the application to the opposite party would be defeated by delay, the Court can grant injunction without giving notice by recording reasons for its opinion to the said fact.

12. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that inasmuch as the order of the Court below granting ad-interim injunction till filing of the counter by the petitioner/defendant did not record any reasons for its opinion as to the object of granting injunction would be defeated due to delay on account of ordering notice to the opposite party, the said order is contrary to law and the mandate of Rule 3 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1(1993) 3 SCC 169 . Thus, the petitioners seek for setting aside the order of the trial Court.

13. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, 2(1994) 4 SCC 225 and also a deci