Immediately following that day in Order 39 Rule 3 - This phrase mandates that the affidavit confirming delivery or sending of copies related to the injunction must be filed either on the same day the injunction is granted or on the next day. The language emphasizes immediacy in complying with procedural requirements ["Upendra Nath Srivastava VS Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pocso Act, Court No. 1, Lko. - Allahabad"], ["Kewal Ashokabhai Vasoya VS Suarabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd - Bombay"], ["DR M VIJAYAKUMAR vs BANGALORE MIRROR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION - Karnataka"].
Main Points and Insights:
- The proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 is imperative and mandatory; courts are required to record reasons if notice is dispensed with, and the affidavit of compliance must be filed on the day or immediately following the grant of the injunction ["Upendra Nath Srivastava VS Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pocso Act, Court No. 1, Lko. - Allahabad"], ["DR M VIJAYAKUMAR vs BANGALORE MIRROR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION - Karnataka"], ["KARNATAKA STATE CIRCKET ASSOCIATION vs MR SHASHIDHARA A V - Karnataka"].
- Non-compliance with this timing can vitiate the injunction order, especially the filing of the affidavit confirming delivery or sending of copies, which is a mandatory procedural step ["Upendra Nath Srivastava VS Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pocso Act, Court No. 1, Lko. - Allahabad"], ["DR M VIJAYAKUMAR vs BANGALORE MIRROR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION - Karnataka"], ["KARNATAKA STATE CIRCKET ASSOCIATION vs MR SHASHIDHARA A V - Karnataka"].
- Courts have consistently held that the phrase immediately following signifies that the filing must occur either on the same day or the very next day; delays beyond this period can lead to the order being challenged or vacated ["Kewal Ashokabhai Vasoya VS Suarabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd - Bombay"], ["DR M VIJAYAKUMAR vs BANGALORE MIRROR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION - Karnataka"], ["RAMACHANDRA R vs K H PARVATHI DEVI - Karnataka"].
- The requirement to record reasons when notice is dispensed with is mandatory; failure to do so renders the order invalid ["Bowring Institute VS Sarwik S. - Current Civil Cases"], ["DR M VIJAYAKUMAR vs BANGALORE MIRROR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION - Karnataka"].
The principle underlying this strict timing is that statutes requiring specific procedural steps must be strictly followed, or else the order may be set aside ["DR M VIJAYAKUMAR vs BANGALORE MIRROR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION - Karnataka"], ["RAMACHANDRA R vs K H PARVATHI DEVI - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
- The phrase immediately following that day in Order 39 Rule 3 signifies that the filing of the affidavit must occur on the same day or the very next day after the injunction is granted. This ensures prompt compliance and maintains the integrity of the ex parte injunction process.
- Courts have consistently emphasized that failure to adhere to this timeline can invalidate the injunction or lead to its vacatur, especially where the recording of reasons and affidavit of compliance are mandatory ["Upendra Nath Srivastava VS Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pocso Act, Court No. 1, Lko. - Allahabad"], ["DR M VIJAYAKUMAR vs BANGALORE MIRROR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION - Karnataka"].
- Therefore, strict compliance with the timing specified in Rule 3 is essential, and any delay beyond the day immediately following can jeopardize the validity of the injunction order ["Kewal Ashokabhai Vasoya VS Suarabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd - Bombay"], ["DR M VIJAYAKUMAR vs BANGALORE MIRROR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION - Karnataka"].
References:- ["Upendra Nath Srivastava VS Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Pocso Act, Court No. 1, Lko. - Allahabad"]- ["Kewal Ashokabhai Vasoya VS Suarabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd - Bombay"]- ["DR M VIJAYAKUMAR vs BANGALORE MIRROR NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION - Karnataka"]- ["Bowring Institute VS Sarwik S. - Current Civil Cases"]- ["KARNATAKA STATE CIRCKET ASSOCIATION vs MR SHASHIDHARA A V - Karnataka"]- ["RAMACHANDRA R vs K H PARVATHI DEVI - Karnataka"]
