The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.3195 of 2024

Order:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal- Malkajgiri, Uppal at L.B.Nagar, in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in O.S.No.462 of 2024.

2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant No.10 herein and others for partition and separate possession and declaration in respect of the schedule plot bearing No.143 admeasuring 220 sq.yds., in Sy.No.673/1, 673/2, 674, 675, 675/A, 675/AA, 679/1 and 679/2, situated at Satya Nagar Colony, Uppal Kalan Village and Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Along with the suit, they have filed I.A.No.216 of 2024, wherein, ad-interim injunction is granted in her favour restraining the petitioner herein from alienating the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

3. Vide impugned order dated 25.06.2024 in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in O.S.No.462 of 2024, the learned Trial Court has passed the following ad-interim injunction order:

“…. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and perusing the material papers, affidavit, documents filed in support thereof, the Court doth order, granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs restraining the respondent/defendant No.10 and their agents from alienating the petition schedule property, till 24.07.2024.”

4. The above order shows that the Trial Court failed to discuss about prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss that the respondent herein would suffer in case an ad-interim injunction is not granted by dispensing notice under Order 39, Rule 3 of CPC. Whenever, an ad-interim injunction is granted by dispensing with notice to the respondents, since such a course of action involves passing of adverse orders against a party who is not heard, the Court is expected to record the reasons in writing for granting ad-

interim injunction for dispensing with notice.

5. The High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in case between Latha Ilangovan v. Usha Rajaram and others referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, MANU/SC/0553/1994 wherein the following principles governing the grant of ex-parte injunction are laid:

“15….

36. As a principle, ex parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weight with the court in the grant of ex parte injunction are-

(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;

(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;

1 MANU/TN/5741/2019

(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;

(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for sometime and in such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;

(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application.

(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time.

(g) General principles like prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the court.

6. On consideration of the above principles, the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in case of Latha Ilangovan (supra) held that when a Trial Court proposes to grant interim injunction without giving notice of application under Order 39, Rule 3 of CPC to opposite party, then object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay and it is mandatory for Court to record reasons for granting ex parte interim order even though granted for limited period. In the instant case, the impugned order i