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
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
SN, J
CRP_2896_2024
injunction, direct notice of the application for
the same to be given to the opposite party:
[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.]
Ins. by Act 104 of 1976, sec. 86 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
SN, J
CRP_2896_2024
[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
Ins. by Act 104 of 1976, sec. 86 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
Dated 22.03.2024 Civil Appeal No.4602 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.6693 of 2024) reported in 2024 INSC 255
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
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
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
