When the ex parte injunction is granted, the condition laid down in proviso to Rule 3 Order 39 Civil Procedure Code has to be strictly complied with.
Citation
Comparative Citations:
1996 (4) ALT 483, 1996 (4) ALD 1225, 1997 (2) CivCC 611, 1997 AIR(AP) 237, 1996 (4) ALD 211,
CDJ 1996 APHC 766
K.B. Siddappa, J.
1. This revision is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 1084 of 1988 in I.A. No. 484 of 1988 in O.S. No. 2789 of 1988 on the file of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs. They obtained ex parteinjunction against the petitioner herein. The case of the petitioner is that after obtaining the ex parte injunction they have not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Order 39 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code. Therefore the injunction granted should be vacated. This plea was negatived by the lower Court.
2. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision is filed.
3. When the ex parte injunction is granted, the condition laid down in proviso to Rule 3 Order 39 Civil Procedure Code has to be strictly complied with. The party obtaining the injunction is required to deliver to the opposite party or to send to him by Registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with -
(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application,
(ii) a copy of the plaint and,
(iii) copies of documents or which the applicant relies and;
(b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent.
4. In this case the documents were sent by registered post. However, the petitioner herein did not open the cover. That was produced before the Court. The learned Munsif, himself, opened the cover and found no documents. There were only suit summons. Notice was also not there. Copy of the injunction order was also not found. However, the learned Munsif took into consideration the memo filed on 10.8.1988 in I.A. No. 484 of 1988, in which the petitioner herein admitted that, they have received copies of affidavit, petition etc. In my opinion this is not a strict compliance of proviso to Rule 3 Order 39 Civil Procedure Code. All the documents mentioned in the proviso should either be served personally or by registered post. The registered cover did not contain all these documents. Certainly there is no compliance with the mandatory provisions.
5. Hence, the injunction granted is vacated. Consequently, the revision is allowed. No costs.
6. I direct the lower Court to dispose of the suit before 29th November, 1996.
Petition allowed.
1. This revision is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 1084 of 1988 in I.A. No. 484 of 1988 in O.S. No. 2789 of 1988 on the file of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs. They obtained ex parteinjunction against the petitioner herein. The case of the petitioner is that after obtaining the ex parte injunction they have not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Order 39 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code. Therefore the injunction granted should be vacated. This plea was negatived by the lower Court.
2. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision is filed.
3. When the ex parte injunction is granted, the condition laid down in proviso to Rule 3 Order 39 Civil Procedure Code has to be strictly complied with. The party obtaining the injunction is required to deliver to the opposite party or to send to him by Registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with -
(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application,
(ii) a copy of the plaint and,
(iii) copies of documents or which the applicant relies and;
(b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent.
4. In this case the documents were sent by registered post. However, the petitioner herein did not open the cover. That was produced before the Court. The learned Munsif, himself, opened the cover and found no documents. There were only suit summons. Notice was also not there. Copy of the injunction order was also not found. However, the learned Munsif took into consideration the memo filed on 10.8.1988 in I.A. No. 484 of 1988, in which the petitioner herein admitted that, they have received copies of affidavit, petition etc. In my opinion this is not a strict compliance of proviso to Rule 3 Order 39 Civil Procedure Code. All the documents mentioned in the proviso should either be served personally or by registered post. The registered cover did not contain all these documents. Certainly there is no compliance with the mandatory provisions.
5. Hence, the injunction granted is vacated. Consequently, the revision is allowed. No costs.
6. I direct the lower Court to dispose of the suit before 29th November, 1996.
Petition allowed.
Comparative Citations:
1996 (4) ALT 483, 1996 (4) ALD 1225, 1997 (2) CivCC 611, 1997 AIR(AP) 237, 1996 (4) ALD 211,
Comments
Post a Comment