RT. REV. J. GNANABARANAM JOHNSON Vs. RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in O.S. No. 190 of 1994 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ariyalur seeks to invoke Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order of the Court below in I.A. No. 300 of 1994 purported to have been passed on 26-7-1994 restraining him by means of an ad-interim injunction from interfering in any manner with the constitution, working and functioning of the church council and its Secretary and in the other tasks of the Vice-President which the church council may assign to him from time to time till 2-12-1994. It appears from the typed set of papers produced in Court that one Rajan has instituted the suit against the present petitioner who is the Bishop of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (T.E.L.C.) seeking permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with the constitution, working and functioning of the Church Council and its Secretary and in the other tasks of the Vice-President which the Church Council may assign to him from time to time. Page 8 of the typed set appears to be an order made in I.A. No. 300 of 1994 in O.S. No. 190 of 1994 in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Ariyalur directing the revision petitioner restraining him from interfering with the constitution, working and functioning of the Church Council as referred to above.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks to quash the above said order on the ground that it is in total violation of the mandatory provisions of Order 39 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. inasmuch as after granting an interim injunction by order dated 26-7-1994 learned Subordinate Judge instead of ordering notice enabling him to dispose of the injunction application within 30 days ordered notice returnable only by 2-12-1994. Besides, he pleaded that the plaint in O.S. No. 190 of 1994 does not disclose any cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ariyalur particularly since the revision petitioner is not residing within the jurisdiction of the said Court. And the value of the suit has been purposely stated as Rs. 5,010.00 without any basis. It cannot be said that there is no substance in the infirmities pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the proceedings of the Court below. However, Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. provides that any order for an injunction may be discharged or varied or set aside by the Court on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order. Even assuming that the order of the Court below cannot stand legal scrutiny for a moment, it is not known why the revision petitioner has not chosen to avail the provisions of Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. and get the ad interim injunction vacated. There is not a word in the grounds of Civil Revision Petition as to why the provision of Art. 226 of the constitution of India are sought to be invoked when the impugned order could be easily set aside under the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is significant to note that not even the certified copy of the petition and order has been produced in Court. So, we are not in a position to know whether in the opinion of the trial Court the object of granting of injunction would be defeated by the delay before granting an injunction and whether it has recorded its reasons for such opinion.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner based reliance on the decision rendered by Srinivasan, J. in Ganapathy Vs. Srinivasan, 1992 TLNJ 146 . There the District Munsif has not chosen to record any reason for his opinion. Instead, he has simply granted injunction without mentioning the reason therefor. He has not disclosed as to whether he is of the opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated if notice is ordered in the application. He granted interim injunction on 10-7-1991. But he has not disposed of that application finally even after a period of one year and two months. The District Munsif kept the petition for vacating injunction pending and they were being adjourned from time to time. Though the application was heard on 4-3-1993, it was directed to be called on 10-3-1992 after the conclusion of the hearing. From 10-3-1992 it was adjourned to 18-3-1992 for enquiry. Nothing was mentioned as to why there should be further enquiry when the matter was heard on 4-3-1992. On the facts Srinivasan, J. took the view either that the District Munsif was completely ignorant of or he was deliberately not adhering to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances, that citation cannot help the petitioner to convince me that he is entitled to invoke the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. No doubt in the present case the injunction has been granted on 26-7-1994 for a period till 2-12-1994 which is more than 30 days. But on the ground alone Art. 227 cannot be invoked when under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. the revision petitioner can move the Court and get the injunction vacated.