AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagadeesan, J.—This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit,
O.S.No. 721 of 1994, on the file of the District Munsiffs Court, Poonamallee. The respondent herein had filed the above suit praying for an
injunction restraining the defendant therein from removing the machinery, raw materials from the factory premises during the subsistence of
industrial dispute pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The respondent also filed an application, I.A.No.2854 of 1994, seeking
for an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The trial court has granted interim injunction and only against the said order the revision has
been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lower court has granted interim injunction on September 8, 1994, without following the
statutory requirements prescribed under Order 39, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as it has failed to give any reason to grant an ex
parte order. Not only an ex parte order was granted against the petitioner but also the court below without any reason had adjourned the matter
periodically even though counter had been filed in IA.No.2853 of 1994 on January 6, 1995. When Order 39, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908, makes it clear that the court should make an endeavour to dispose of the interlocutory application within thirty days from the date of
the order, wherever an ex parte order has been granted. The lower court on March 9, 1995, had adjourned the matter to March 24, 1995, and
subsequently to April 20, 1995, June 28, 1995, August 4, 1995, September 15, 1995, and October 20, 1995. On more than one occasion the
court below had adjourned the matter beyond thirty days and hence the court below is not inclined to dispose of the matter as provided under
Order 39, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the two judgments in Suryanarayana Paper
and Boards Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. V. Padmakumar and others, and Silver Granites Vs. Murugan and others, .
I have perused the order of the court below. I heard both counsel. They relied upon the judgments referred to above. I am of the view that the
order of the court below dated September 8, 1994, has to be set aside, since the lower court has passed the order contrary to the provisions of
the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the respondent also conceded that the lower court has not followed the procedure prescribed
under the Civil Procedure Code. But the only pica of the respondent is that merely because the lower court has not followed the procedure the
respondent should not be prejudiced. At this stage, I do not think the respondent''s interest can be safeguarded by sustaining the illegal order or by
passing any direction. Hence, the order of the court below dated September 8, 1994, in the interlocutory application is set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the suit itself is not maintainable, since the matter is pending before the Industrial
Tribunal. Wherever an industrial dispute is pending, the parties cannot seek for any relief before the civil court. She also relied upon the two
judgments in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Krishna Kant and Others, and The Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs.
Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay and Others, . I do not think that this Court can enter into the discussion with regard to the maintainability
of the suit at this stage. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to take all the pleas before the trial court.
For the reasons stated above, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order in IA.No.2854 of 1994 in O.S.No.721 of 1994, dated
September 8, 1994, on the file of the District Munsiffs Court, Poonamallee, is set aside and the LA. is remanded to the lower court for fresh
disposal in accordance with law. No costs.