A. Thangavel vs A. Mariappan

Sathiadev, J.—Though the defendant had filed this revision by invoking S. 115 C.P.C., in view of the objections raised by the plaintiff that a

revision petition is not maintainable, the revision petition is hereby treated as one filed by invoking Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, to which

effect, the learned counsel for the defendant has made an endorsement in the bundle. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, in a petition filed

for grant of interim injunction, the trial Court having granted it, had not taken up the I.A. in spite of the I.A. filed to advance the hearing. In is stated

that both the petitions have been adjourned on seven occasions in spite of parties being ready to participate in the hearing Learned counsel also

relies upon the requirements in O.39, R. 3 A, C.P.C., which enjoins upon a court to dispose of such injunction petitions within thirty days of the

institution of the petition.

The intention behind R.3 A in O. 39 C.P.C., being to enable the parties who are affected by grant of interim injunction to secure an early order

from court, and there being no material on record to find out as to what had prevented the court to keep on adjourning the matter for enquiry, and

more particularly from 5.1.1987 onwards, it has to be concluded that the court below had not understood and carried out the requirements of R.3-

A in O. 39 C.P.C. R.3-A in O. 39, C.P.C, was inducted in the CPC under the Amending Act 104 of 1976. The objects and reasons for carrying

out the amendment go to show that at one stage it has thought that a firm period must be fixed for passing orders failing which the orders should

lapse but later on it was considered that it should be left to the judicial discretion of the court by taking into account relevant circumstances and

dispose of such petitions within the time spent out therein. The committee also took note of the fact that there may be occasions when the court

may not be able to take up the matters for consideration. But, the proceedings in this matter go to show that the court had actually posted the

matters for enquiry on seven different dates but still, it has not chosen to pass orders.

One other requirement found therein is that the court is bound to give reasons if it is not able to dispose of the matter within the period of thirty

days fixed therein. The ''B'' diary maintained by the court below nowhere discloses any reason having been furnished by the court as required in the

Civil Procedure Code. In the absence of reasons being given, it would only mean that the court below had failed to comply with the requirements

of Civil Procedure Code. If a court does not dispose of the matter within the time fixed under the Rule, and omits to give reasons, the order of

interim injunction will become an invalid order. Therefore, unless the court discloses reasons as to why on each one of the adjourned dates it was

not able to pass orders, it would only lead to holding that the court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, and such orders could be

interfered with by issuing suitable directions. Since, a direction is issued to the court below to take up the I.A. on 18-3-1987 and production of a

carbon copy of this order and pass orders thereon before 20-3-1987. With this direction, the revision petition is allowed. No costs.