Telangana High Court
Tejavath Umla vs Tejavath Sathish on 7 November, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
Civil Revision Petition No.2896 of 2024
ORDER:
Heard Sri P. Ramulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants and Sri B. Jitender, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 07.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.102 of 2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad. PERUSED THE RECORD:
3. The impugned order dated 07.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.102 of 2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad, is extracted hereunder:
"Upon motion made unto this Court by Sri Sanda Krishna Advocate for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and upon perusing the documents filed in this matter and upon hearing the arguments of the said counsel for the 2 SN, J CRP_2896_2024 petitioner/plaintiff, this court DOTH AND ORDER that an Ad-interim injunction is be and hereby granted in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff restraining the respondent/defendant their agents, attorney's supporters, workers, heirs, workmen and all those persons claiming through them from defendant interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff in and over, the suit schedule open place and or dispossessing him from in any manner till 26.06.2024."
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners challenged the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.102 of 2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad on two grounds, the same is contrary to order 39 Rule 3 proviso and also 3A of CPC, the same is extracted hereunder:
"3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party- The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an 3 SN, J CRP_2896_2024 injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party:1
[Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant-
(a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered pot immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made a copy a copy of the application for injunction together with-
(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application;
(ii) a copy of the plaint; and
(iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and
(b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent.] 1 Ins. by Act 104 of 1976, sec. 86 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).4
SN, J CRP_2896_2024 2 [3A. Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days.- Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable to do, so it shall record its reasons for such inability]".
5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that no notice had been issued to the petitioners prior to the passing of the impugned order and further that the impugned order is bereft of reasons and contrary to proviso to order 39 Rule 3 and also 3A of CPC.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment in "Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited vs. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited 1", at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 observed as under:
11. The order of the trial Judge does not discuss, even cursorily, the prima facie 2 Ins. by Act 104 of 1976, sec. 86 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).1
Dated 22.03.2024 Civil Appeal No.4602 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6693 of 2024) reported in 2024 INSC 255 5 SN, J CRP_2896_2024 strength of the plaintiff's case, nor does it deal with the balance of convenience or the irreparable hardship that is caused. The trial Judge needed to have analysed why such an ex parte injunction was essential after setting out the factual basis and the contentions of the respondent made before the trial Judge. The trial Judge merely states, in paras 7-8, that the court has gone through the record available as on date and noticed certain precedents where an ad-interim injunction was granted. Without even cursorily dwelling on the merits of the plaint, the ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Judge amounts to unreasoned censorship which cannot be countenanced.
12. Undoubtedly, the grant of an interim injunction is an exercise of discretionary power and the appellate court (in this case, the High Court) will usually not interfere with the grant of interim relief. However, in a line of precedent, this Court has held that appellate courts must interfere with the grant of interim relief if the discretion has been exercised "arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or where the court has ignored settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. (10) The grant of an ex parte 6 SN, J CRP_2896_2024 interim injunction by way of an unreasoned order, definitely falls within the above formulation, necessitating interference by the High Court."
7. A bare perusal of the impugned order does not indicate any reasons. As seen from the record, it is also evident that the trial Court has not followed the procedure as laid down under order 39 Rule 3 of CPC and according to order 39 Rule 3 of CPC the Court has to dispose of ad-interim injunction petition within 30 days and the same was also not followed in the present case.
8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgment referred to and extracted above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.102 of 2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad is set aside and the trial Court is directed to dispose of 7 SN, J CRP_2896_2024 I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.102 of 2024 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in accordance to law and both the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court for disposal of I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.102 of 2024, on merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 07.11.2024 Dsu