2000 (9) TMI 1001 - SC - Indian Laws

Ex- parte interim order of injunction Whether the High Court should have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when the party had two other alternative remedies? Held that - In the light of the direction issued by the High Court that the trial court should pass final orders on the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff on merits and in accordance with law, we may further add that till such orders are passed by the trial court, status-quo as it prevailed immediately preceding the institution of the suit would be maintained by the parties.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of ex-parte interim injunction granted by the trial court.
2. Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 and Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Appropriateness of invoking Article 227 of the Constitution by the High Court.
4. Remedies available to the respondent against the ex-parte interim order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Ex-parte Interim Injunction:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him from the property. An ex-parte interim injunction was granted by the trial court based on the plaintiff's claim of being a statutory tenant. The High Court set aside this injunction, noting that the trial court should not have granted an injunction at the first stage itself without knowing the affected party's response. The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court's observation but emphasized that the power to pass interim ex-parte orders of injunction emanates from Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for such orders to prevent waste, damage, or alienation of property.

2. Compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 and Rule 3A:
The High Court criticized the trial court for not complying with the requirements of Order 39 Rule 3, which mandates recording reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction and ensuring the applicant performs specific duties. The Supreme Court held that non-compliance with these requisites cannot go without consequence, and the beneficiary of such an order must face the risk of non-compliance. Regarding Rule 3A, which requires the court to endeavor to dispose of the application within thirty days, the Supreme Court clarified that the order does not become illegal merely because it was not restricted to thirty days. However, failure to pass final orders within thirty days should not force the affected party to suffer due to the court's inaction.

3. Appropriateness of Invoking Article 227 of the Constitution:
The High Court entertained a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the ex-parte interim injunction. The Supreme Court noted that while no hurdle can be put against the exercise of constitutional powers, it is a recognized principle that the High Court should direct the party to avail themselves of alternative remedies before resorting to constitutional remedies. The Supreme Court suggested that the High Court need not have entertained the revision petition and should have directed the affected party to resort to statutory remedies.

4. Remedies Available to the Respondent:
The respondent had two statutory remedies available: approaching the trial court for vacating or modifying the interim ex-parte order or preferring an appeal against the order. The Supreme Court emphasized that the choice lies with the affected party to opt for either remedy. It was also noted that if the court fails to comply with Rule 3A, the aggrieved party should have the right to appeal, notwithstanding the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of a temporary injunction. The appellate court must entertain such an appeal and consider the lower court's omission in complying with Rule 3A.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with directions that the trial court should pass final orders on the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff on merits and in accordance with law. It also directed that the status quo as it prevailed immediately preceding the institution of the suit should be maintained by the parties until such orders are passed.

← Previous Next →