2014 (8) TMI 1184 - HC - Indian Laws

Permanent injunction restraining the respondent, its agents, workmen or any person acting through or on behalf from interfering with the operations of the mining machinery deployed in the schedule property pending adjudication of the disputes - Whether this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought to entertain this writ petition and if so, as to whether any relief ought to be granted to the petitioner herein? HELD THAT - This is a case where this Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The reasons for entertaining the writ petition would become clear when the impugned order is considered on merits. From a reading of the impugned order it is clear that nowhere reasons have been recorded as to why the trial Court was of the opinion that injunction had to be granted in the form of a status quo order with regard to agreement between the parties dated11.12.2012 by dispensing with notice to opposite party i.e., petitioner herein before it concluded that non-grant of expert order of status quo would be defeated by delay if notice was to be ordered on the opposite party i.e., petitioner herein. In fact the impugned order records submission of applicant s counsel before the trial Court, but in the absence of there being reasons as to why the expert order ought to have been allowed the impugned order is illegal and an arbitrary exercise of power by the learned trial Judge. In fact the impugned order is bald, laconic and bereft of any reason. In fact on a reading of the impugned order itis noted that in the absence of there being any reasons assigned for dispensation of notice to the respondent before the trial Court coupled with a fact that no reasons have been assigned as to how the applicant before the trial Court had made out a prima facie case there is in effect and substance, violation of the principles of natural justice. Had the petitioner herein who is the respondent before the trial Court known the reasons as to why there was dispensation of notice to it and as to what the grave situation was that the matter required an expert order then possibly petitioner herein could not have approached this Court on that aspect. Also, if there were reasons assigned which were erroneous then possibly petitioner herein could have assailed that order by way of an appeal by contending that reasons were erroneous - But in this case the impugned order does not give any reason as to how prime facie case was made out by respondent herein or for that matter what the balance of convenience between the parties was. The impugned order being bereft of reasons is liable to be quashed.

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
4. Issuance of ex-parte orders without assigning reasons.
5. Jurisdiction and exercise of supervisory powers by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 14.05.2014 violated the mandate prescribed under Order XXXIX Rule 3 as it was issued without assigning any reason for dispensing with notice to the opposite party. The trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of this provision, which necessitates recording reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction without notice. The High Court found that the impugned order was bereft of reasons, making it illegal and an arbitrary exercise of power. The order did not reflect why the trial court believed that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay.

2. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution:
The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the petitioner should have availed the appellate remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of CPC. However, the High Court, referencing the judgments in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan And Others and Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, held that the writ petition was maintainable. The High Court emphasized that it could exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct errors of jurisdiction or violations of principles of natural justice.

3. Compliance with principles of natural justice:
The High Court noted that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice as it was passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. The absence of reasons for dispensing with notice to the petitioner and the lack of consideration of the balance of convenience and irreparable loss further underscored this violation. The High Court emphasized that such orders must reflect the trial court's reasoning to ensure transparency and fairness.

4. Issuance of ex-parte orders without assigning reasons:
The High Court found that the trial court's order was laconic and mechanical, lacking any substantive reasoning. The trial court merely recorded the submissions of the applicant's counsel without providing any rationale for the ex-parte order. The High Court highlighted that the trial court must assign reasons for granting such orders, especially when they impact the rights arising from agreements between parties.

5. Jurisdiction and exercise of supervisory powers by the High Court:
The High Court, referencing the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court, held that it was justified in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The High Court emphasized that it could correct manifest errors apparent on the face of the proceedings and ensure that subordinate courts acted within their jurisdiction. The impugned order's lack of compliance with mandatory procedural requirements warranted the High Court's intervention to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 14.05.2014 due to its non-compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC and violation of principles of natural justice. The court directed the parties to appear before the trial court and allowed the petitioner to file objections. The trial court was instructed to consider and dispose of the application expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.

← Previous Next →