SHANMUGAM FOUNDATION PVT. LTD Vs. SIVAKALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has called in question an order of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, made in I.A. No: 365 of 2012 in O.S. No: 160 of 2012 dated 20.04.2012 in this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) THE Revision petitioner is the 3rd defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit for a permanent injunction and for a direction to the defendant to account for the income from the suit properties. The 1st respondent plaintiff also prayed for an interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. restraining the defendants from in any manner encumbering or alienating or dealing with the suit schedule property by putting up any construction or otherwise pending disposal of the suit and to grant an order of interim injunction to the same effect pending disposal of the suit.

(3.) MR . V.T. Gopalan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would assail the impugned order on the ground that the order is exfacie passed without application of mind. According to the counsel the impugned order cannot stand for a moment for scrutiny for the reason that Proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. states very clearly that the trial Court if proposes to grant an injunction before giving notice to the opposite party shall record its reasons for so doing. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel relied on the following decisions, viz.