SRINANDAN SINGAL Vs. MANJUSHREE ROLLER FLOUR MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed againts the order passed by the Prl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 3539/2008 dated 4-6-2008.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 9 from interfering with the business of the plaintiffs in any manner. Plaintiffs also filed an application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the C. P. C. inter alia seeking ad interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants, his agents, from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule premises during the pendency of the said suit. The said application came up for consideration before the Court on 4-6-2008. The learned trial Judge issued an order of status-quo by dispensing notice to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for granting temporary order of status quo and if no such order is passed, they will be put of loss.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that, in case if the Court wants to dispense with the notice to the defendants before granting temporary injunction under O. 39, R. 3 of the C. P. C., the Court is required to record reason and also reason for granting the temporary injunction and the impugned order neither states any reason for granting ex parte temporary injunction nor recorded any findings. He submits the order is contrary to the O. 39, R. 3 of the C. P. C. In this regard, he also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivkumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 161 : (AIR 1999 SC 1125) and submitted that, in case of granting ex parte temporary injunction, the trial Court exercise its discretion to dispense with the notice to the defendants in such case, it must record reasons for granting ex parte temporary injunction, Apex Court in the said judgment has observed at para 36 as under : 36. Accordingly, we direct that the application for interim injunction should be considered and disposed of in the following manner: