ROOPA D Vs. ROHINI SINDHURI I A S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point to be answered in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is :

(2.) Given a look at the events that led to this writ petition being filed, the Additional City Civil Judge, (CCH74), Bengaluru, in O.S.25288/2023, a suit for damages in relation to alleged defamation, passed an exparte order of temporary injunction on 23/2/2023 against defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 60 and directed respondent no.1 who is the plaintiff in the suit to comply with requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC. The plaintiff filed an affidavit before the court reporting compliance, but there was no compliance as regards the petitioner herein, who is defendant no.60 in the suit. After she received the suit summons and appeared before the court on 7/3/2023, she brought to the notice of the court by filing a memo that there was no compliance and requested the court not to extend the exparte temporary injunction. The plaintiff, while seeking extension of the interim order filed a memo stating that she could not comply with requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of Order 39 Rule 3 due to inadvertence, but however stated in the memo that on 27/2/2023, she sent to defendant no.60 the intimation of grant of exparte order in her favour. In spite of coming to know about non-compliance within twenty four hours, the trial court extended the interim order on 7/3/2023. The order of extension is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) I heard the argument of Sri.Madhukar Deshpande, learned advocate for the petitioner-defendant no.60, and Sri. P.N.Rajeshwara, learned advocate for respondent no.1-plaintiff.