COIMBATORE PIONEER MILLS LTD Vs. CHANDRA TEXTILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 2418 of 1995 is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, In I.A. No. 1731 of 1995 in O.S. No. 1471 of 1995. The suit is filed by the respondent herein for an injunction restraining the petitioner from in any manner interfering with its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property or the ingress and egress from the suit property to the main gate and preventing any movement of goods by means of a permanent injunction. In the application, the respondent prayed for an interim injunction on the same lines. The matter came up before court for orders on 15-9-1995. It is stated by the petitioner that at the time when the application was called in the open court, his counsel made a representation that he would file vakalat for the petitioner herein that he may be heard in the matter before any orders are passed. According to the petitioner, the District Munsif ignored that representation and passed an order of interim injunction. But, according to the Respondent when the petitioner's counsel made a representation, he did not have vakalat and he told the court that the Managing Director of the petitioner company was out of the country. The matter was, according to the respondent, adjourned by one hour and taken up at 03.30 but at that time, according to him, there was no representation for the petitioner and no vakalat was filed. Thereafter, the court passed the interim orders. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's counsel had filed a vakalat at 04.00 PM in the Court of the District Munsif. According to the petitioner, the Managing Director had left certain vakalats signed by him with his counsel as already another suit was pending in the court. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case, to go into the conflicting averments made by the parties in this case with regard to that aspect of the matter.

(2.) IN so far as the order of the court is concerned it reads as follows:- "Records perused. Heard. Prima facie and the balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. Records reveal that the petitioner has sufficient cause to file this suit and the petition seeking for interim relief. Hence, in the interest of justice, an ad interim injunction is granted for a short period till 29-9-1995. Notice 29-9-95".

(3.) THIS Court has been repeatedly passing judicial orders pointing out the mandatory language used in Order 39, Rules 3, and the necessary of the subordinate judiciary to adhere to the Rule and strictly comply with the same before an order of injunction is passed. In fact, this court has also passed strictures on certain officials, who had not complied with the Rule. There is also an Administrative Circular issued by this court in P.D is 88/90 that the subordinate judiciary must strictly comply with the provisions of Order 39, Rules 3 and 3-A Code of Civil Procedure. It is very unfortunate that many a Subordinate Judge are violating not only the Rules but also an Administrative Circular issued by this Court even though disciplinary action has been taken against some members of the Subordinate Judiciary for not complying with the Rule and not obeying the administrative circular. It is one other instance of such disobedience on the part of the Principal District Munsif.