RATHINAM Vs. PAVATHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred under the following circumstances: respondent herein has filed O.S.No.232 of 1990, on the file of the Court of District Nilgiris at Ootacamund on 8.10.1990. The said suit was one for partition and possession of plaintiffs half share in two suit items. Simultaneously, the respondent also I.A.No.703 of 1990 for grant of an ad-interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein any person claiming under them from interfering with the respondent's joint possession the suit properties and from alienating the same or any portions thereof to any third pending disposal of the suit. The respondent was successful in getting an ex parte injunction. The order granting interim injunction simply reads: "Heard. Interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from alienating the entire suit property..... matter was posted to 9.11.1990. No reason for granting such an order was given District Judge.

(2.) ON coming to know of the granting of ex parte injunction, the petitioners filed a written statement in the suit and also filed a counter in I.A.No.703 of 1990 bringing notice of the Court that the respondent herein initially filed O.S.No.157 of 1990 on the Court of District Munsif, Gudalur, Nilgiris, in respect of the identical properties along I.A.No.489 of 1990. The suit filed in the Court of the District Munsif was one for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the possession enjoyment of the respondent herein of the suit properties. Be it noted, the stand taken suit filed in the District Munsif's Court by the respondent herein was to the effect was in separate possession and enjoyment of earmarked portion of properties from the suit properties as detailed in the plaint. ON that basis alone, an I. ANo.489 of However, the learned District Munsif declined to grant an ex parte interim injunction the endorsement, the suit was filed on 25.7.1990. Having failed to obtain an ex parte injunction in the District Munsif's Court, the respondent herein filed the suit in the Court out of which the present civil revision petition arises, totally suppressing the earlier suit and I.A.No.489 of 1990 for injunction and the stand taken by her in that When these facts were brought to the notice of the District Judge, it is expected of dispose of I.A.No.703 of 1990 immediately without any delay. Surprisingly and for best known to him, the District Judge has not disposed of the I.A. so far, notwithstanding the fact that he has not given any reason while granting the ex parte injunction and of a duty cast on him under O.39, Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) THE facts narrated above will speak for themselves and no comments are required portray the conduct of the District Judge. One more factor required to be explained may be noted. We have seen that the respondent has taken a stand before the learned Munsif in I.ANo.489 of 1990 in O.S.No.157 of 1990 that she was in separate possession enjoyment of earmarked portion out of the suit property whereas in the suit filed in the District Court I.A.No.703 of 1990, the stand taken by the respondent was to the effect that she joint possession of the suit properties along with the first petitioner herein. In the affidavit now filed in this Court by the respondent seeking to vacate the interim has again stated: