TAMILSELVI Vs. PANDIYAN EDUCATIONAL BOARD TIRUPPATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 6 in O. S. No. 9384 of 1994 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras have filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order in I. A. No. 7168 of 1995 in the said suit,'extending the exparte injunction and adjourning the case to 21-7-1995'. The said suit filed by the respondents herein, who are Pandian Educational Board and its alleged office bearers, is for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants in the suit (strangely including defendants 7 and 8 who are Director of Technical Education and State Bank of India respectively and who are not parties herein) from causing any disturbance to the plaintiffs in the management of the said Pandian Educational Board of Tirupattur which runs Pandian Polytechnic institute at Tirupattur. The plaint in the said suit is dated 21-10-1994. The above said I. A. No. 7168 of 1995 sought for a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. , pending disposal of the suit, against defendants 1 to 6, restraining them from functioning arbitrarily, and independently without concurrence and participation of the plaintiffs, in the administrative affairs of the said board or restraining them from preventing the plaintiffs from participating in the said administrative affairs.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners mainly made two submissions. The first submission is, the Court below has grossly erred in not following Order 39 Rule 3 and 3-A, C. P. C. in passing the ex-parte order of injunction originally on 28-4-1995 and extending it a number of times till july, 1995 despite the fact that the respondents herein had not even served notice of the LA. and its abovesaid order dated 28-4-1995 on the petitioners herein and despite the fact that the petitioners herein had filed their counter on 9-6-1995 together with I. A. No. 8268 of 1995 for vacating the said ex-parte injunction.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further to deal with the highly improper extension of the abovesaid interim injunction order by the Court below, I must state one other important fact relating to the suppression of certain relevant facts by the respondents and relating to the non-maintainability of the abovesaid I. A. No. 7168 of 1995 itself. The abovesaid LA. No. 7168 of 1995 was filed on or about 27-4-1995, while the suit was filed on or about 21-10-1994 itself. But along with the plaint, the respondents herein had filed i. A. No. 20167 of 1994 against the petitioners herein, praying for similar relief as in I. A. No. 7168 of 1995, and the supporting affidavit therein, contained almost similar averments as in the supporting affidavit to I. A. No. 7168 of 1995. In the said I. A. No. 20167 of 1994, notice was ordered on 21-10-1994 and it appears that the petitioners did not pay batta for effecting service and the said LA. , even according to learned Counsel for the respondents was finally dismissed on 11- 7-1995. The relevant averments regarding this aspect have been made in paragraphs 3 and 12 of the counter affidavit filed in I. A. No. 7168 of 1995. Inter alia, there, it is specifically pointed out that no notice given of the abovesaid earlier LA. also to the petitioners herein. This fact also has not been repudiated either by filing any reply to the said counter or at least in the counter that was filed to the abovesaid C. M. P. in the C. R. P. , despite the fact that similar averments have been made by the petitioners herein in their supporting affidavit to the said C. M. P.