Allahabad High Court
Soni Kumari And 3 Others vs Gulam Mohammad Khan on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2432 of 2021
Petitioner :- Soni Kumari And 3 Others
Respondent :- Gulam Mohammad Khan
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Jaiswal,Sanjay Maurya
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners.
The petitioners have preferred present petition with the prayer to set aside the ex-parte interim order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Allahabad as In-charge District Judge.
It appears from perusal of the record that a suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), F.T.C., Allahabad being Original Suit No.2913 of 2018, along-with said suit an application for grant of interim injunction being Applicant No.6-C was also filed. Aforesaid applications were rejected by the trial court vide its judgement and order dated 15.3.2021. Against the aforesaid order misc. appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent before the District Judge, Allahabad, which was numbered as Misc. Appeal No.13 of 2021.
It is argued that caveat application was filed by the defendants-petitioners before the District Judge on 20.3.2021, however, without providing opportunity of hearing on the same day interim injunction was granted by the appellate court vide its order dated 20.3.2021.
I have perused the order passed by the Incharge, District Judge dated 20.3.2021. By the aforesaid order appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties and further status quo was also granted. The order passed by the appellate court is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"Taken up today.
Heard learned counsel for appellant on the point of admission.
This Misc. Civil Appeal has been preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against order dated 15.03.2021 passed by learned trial court Civil Judge (S.D.) F.T.C., Allahabad in suit no.2913 of 2018 Gulam Mohammad vs. Soni Kumari and others thereby rejecting the 6c application of the plaintiff.
Regarding ownership and possession of the disputed property is involved in the matter. Hence, appeal is admissible against the impugned order/judgment.
Order
Admit. Register. Issue notice to the opposite party fixing 15.04.2021 for hearing. Status quo be maintained till the date fixed for disposal.
(R. K. Shukla)
I/c D.J.
A.D.J. Court No.1
Allahabad"
It is settled law that before passing any order for grant of injunction reasons should be assigned.
In the case of Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Vs. Suneel Shiva Gaikwad reported in (2010)15 SCC 539 it was held that while granting or rejecting injunction recording of reasons is mandatory.
In the case of Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 it was held by the Supreme Court that :-
"E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed.
F. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.
G. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.
In case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.
If an exparte injunction order is granted, then in that case an endeavour should be made to dispose of the application for injunction as expeditiously as may be possible, preferably as soon as the defendant appears in the court."
From perusal of the order impugned which is challenged in the present petition, it is clear that while granting an ex-parte injunction in favour of the appellant no reasons whatsoever has been given.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The notices are not required to be issued to the respondents.
In the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and since the interim injunction was granted without passing a speaking order, the Court is of the opinion that order dated 20.3.2021 is liable to be set-aside and the same is hereby set aside. The appellate court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law but after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.
Accordingly, present petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021
Pramod Tripathi
