1987 (3) TMI 526 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of an ex parte injunction order under Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Necessity of an injunction restraining transfer of suit property despite the doctrine of lis pendens.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the challenge to an ex parte injunction order under Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellant argued that the order was defective as it lacked the court's opinion and reasons for proceeding ex parte. While the rule mandates recording reasons, the court opined that such recording is not mandatory to overturn a justifiable ex parte order solely due to the omission of reasons. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the failure to record reasons does not vitiate the order if there are materials on record justifying the injunction. The court rejected the contention that the absence of reasons necessitates reversal of the order.

2. The second issue pertains to the necessity of an injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the suit property despite the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellant argued that such an injunction was unnecessary as Section 52 already addresses pendente lite transfers. However, the court held that the doctrine of lis pendens may not always fully protect the plaintiff's interest, especially in cases of specific performance suits. Referring to Rule 1 of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court highlighted that it allows for interim injunctions to restrain property transfer during litigation, indicating the need for such injunctions in appropriate cases. Citing legal authorities, the court rejected the argument that the doctrine of lis pendens renders injunctions against pendente lite transfers redundant.

3. On the merits, the court found that the trial judge was justified in issuing the impugned injunction order. The defendant had not filed a response to the plaintiff's application for injunction, requiring the court to accept the application's statements as true at that stage. The court emphasized that the final decision on the injunction would be based on the materials presented during the final hearing, and any findings made during the interim stage would not replace the final decision in the suit. The court dismissed the appeal, directing the trial judge to expedite the hearing on the application for temporary injunction pending before him.

In conclusion, the judgment upholds the validity of the ex parte injunction order and emphasizes the necessity of injunctions to prevent harm to the plaintiff's interests during litigation, despite the existence of the doctrine of lis pendens. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering all relevant factors in granting interim injunctions and highlights the distinction between interim findings and final decisions in legal proceedings.