Rt. Rev. R.T. Baskaran, Bishop of Vellore and Another vs Aruldoss and Another

K.A. Swami, C.J.—This civil revision petition u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is preferred against order of ad-interim

injunction dated 22.4.1992 passed by the District Munsif, Villupuram, on I.A. No. 803 of 1992 filed in O.S. No. 487 of 1992.

It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case. This is a revision petition, which is filed against the ex parte order of temporary injunction

without filing the objections to it and seeking an order from the trial Court which has granted the order of temporary injunction. It is true, while

granting the order of ad-interim injunction, the Court has to bear in mind the provisions contained in Rules 1 and 3 of Order 39 of Civil Procedure

Code. The Court can pass an order of ad-interim injunction only when it is satisfied that the object of granting the injunction will be defeated by the

delay caused in directing the notice of the application to the opposite party before granting the injunction. The court has to record the reasons for

its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay in serving the notice. It has also to issue directions as per

Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 3 of Order 39 when it issued an order of ad-interim injunction. It is always advisable to limit the ad-interim injunction to

two or three weeks and fix the date for service of notice and appearance within two or three weeks as the case may be, to ensure that the plaintiff

takes all the care to serve the opposite side. This will not only facilitate the opposite party to appear immediately and put forth his objections and

the Court also will be able to decide the application within the time stipulated by Rule 3-A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Even when such a care is not taken by the Court while granting the ad-interim injunction, it is not possible to hold that it is appropriate for the

party and also for this Court to entertain a civil revision petition u/s 115, C.P.C. against an order of ad-interim injunction. The Code specifically

provides that an order granting or refusing an order of injunction is appealable under Clause (r) of Rule 1 of Order 43. Further, as against the order

passed in appeal, the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked.

Even assuming for a moment that what is passed is only an ad-interim injunction, ignoring the provisions contained in Rule 3 of Order 39 of Civil

Procedure Code, the only appropriate course for the party against whom an order of injunction is issued, is to file objections immediately without

waiting for service of notice, and seek vacation of the same. Rule 3-A of Order 39, C.P.C. Specifically provides that where an injunction has been

granted without giving a notice to the opposite party the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within 30 days from the

date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability. Therefore, it becomes

incumbent on the part of the Court granting an injunction without giving a notice to the opposite party to decide the application within four weeks.

That being the position, the practice of filing a civil revision petition against the ad-interim injunction and entertaining of the same by this Court

cannot be encouraged, rather it should be deprecated and discontinued. It is this practice, which has added to the delay in the disposal of the suits

in the trial Courts. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is now open to the parties against whom the injunction is granted, to file their

objections if any, within two weeks from 1st July, 1996 before the trial Court. The learned Judge of the trial Court shall decide the application

within four weeks from 1st July, 1996. As the order of temporary injunction has been suspended for over 4 years, in order to ensure that the status

quo is continued till the application is decided, the interim Order passed in the revision petition is continued only till the end of July, 1996. The

parties are directed to appeal before the trial Curt, on 1st July, 1996. The C.M. Ps. are also disposed of. However, I made no order as to costs.

The trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by the direction as to continuance of the status quo till the end of July, 1996.