A. Thangavel vs A. Mariappan

Sathiadev, J.—Though the defendant had filed this revision by invoking Section 115 of CPC, 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 Article 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. inspirit of the I.A. filed to advance the hearing. It is stated that both the petitions have been adjourned on seven occasions inspirit of parties being ready to participate in the hearings. Learned Counsel also relies upon the requirements in Order 39 Rule 1 CPC which enjoins upon a court to dispose of such injunction petitions within 30 days of the institution of the petition.

The intention behind Rule 3A in Order 39 CPC being to enable 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 Rule 3A in Order 39 CPC. Rule 3A in Order 39 CPC was inducted in CPC under the Amending Act 104/76. The objects and reasons for carrying out the amendment go to show that at one stage it was 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 slept 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 matter for enquiry on seven different dates but still, it has not chosen to pass orders.

The 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 30 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 CPC. In the absence of reasons being given, it would only mean that the court below had failed to comply with the requirements of CPC. If a court does not dispose of the matter within the time fixed under the Rule, and omits to give reason, 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 the jurisdiction vested in it, and such orders could be interfered with by issuing suitable directions.

Hence, a direction is issued to the court below to take up the LA 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.