A THANGAVEL Vs. A MARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the defendant had filed this revision by invoking Section 115 of the CPC, in view of the objections raised by the plaintiff that a revision petition is not maintainable, the revision petition is hereby treated as one filed by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to which effect, the learned counsel for the defendant has made an endorsement in the bundle.

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that, in a petition filed for grant of interim injunction, the trial Court having granted it, had not taken up the I.A., in spite of the I.A. filed to advance the hearing. It is stated that both the petitions have been adjourned on seven occasions inspite of parties being ready to participate in the hearings. Learned counsel also relies upon the requirements in Order 39, Rule 1, CPC which enjoins upon a Court to dispose of such injunction petitions within 30 days of the institution of the petition.

(3.) The intention behind Rule 3-A in Order 39, CPC being to enable parties who are affected by grant of interim injunction to secure an early order from Court, and there being no material on record to find out as to what had prevented the Court to keep on adjourning the matter for enquiry, and more particularly from 5.1.1987 onwards it has to be concluded that the Court below had not understood and carried out the requirements of Rule 3-A in Order 39, CPC. Rule 3-A in Order 39, CPC was inducted in CPC under the Amending Act 104/76. The objects and reasons for carrying out the amendment go to show that at one stage it was thought that a firm period must be fixed for passing orders failing which the orders should lapse but later on it was considered that it should be left to the judicial discretion of the Court by taking into account relevant circumstances and dispose of such petitions within the time spelt out therein. The committee also took note of the fact that there may be occasions when the Court may not be able to take up the matters for consideration. But, the proceedings in this matter go to show that the Court had actually posted the matter for enquiry on seven different dates but still, it has not chosen to pass orders.