M LOGANATHAN Vs. MARIYAYEEAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the interim injunction granted by the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, dated 28.06.2006 in I.A.No.313 of 2006 in O.S.No.366 of 2006, the revision petitioners have approached the Court by way of preferring the present Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) THE necessary facts leading to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:THE first revision petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.142 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore and sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the ground that he is the absolute owner of the suit property from 1983 onwards, after the demise of his mother. He has obtained interim injunction.

(3.) HE drew the attention of this court to two decisions of the Apex Court in Venkata Subbiah Naidu v. S.Challappan 2000 4 CTC 358 and Kishore Kumar v. Praveen Kumar 2006 (3) CTC 185 for the proposition that before granting an ex parte injunction, the Court has to record reasons thereof and it should enable the litigant to perform his obligations, enumerated in Clauses (a) and (b) of the Rule 3 of Order 39 C.P.C.. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners the Court below was not justified in granting interim injunction against the revision petitioners.