R SAKUNTALA Vs. V JAGANNADHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Court below refusing police protection. The plaintiff is the petitioner who has laid a suit, for declaration and consequential injunctionagainst the defendant- 1st respondent. Pending disposal of the suit, temporary injunction was sdught for and that was granted in LA. No.1385 of 1990. As there was interference by the defendant in spite of the injunction order, on 17-9-1991, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No.14250 of 1991 in this Court seeking orders for police protection. A Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition on 30-10-1991 with a direction to the Court below to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking police protection and also dispose of LA. No.1385 of 1990 on merits expeditiously. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed I.A. No.1139 of 1991 before the Court below for granting police protection to 'mplement the injunction orders. But curiously, the Court below has refused the same on the ground that as the injunction petition was not disposed of within 30 days as contemplated under Rule 3-A of Order 39 C.P.C. the injunction order has become non est and as such, the question of granting police protection does not arise. For this proposition, the Court below has relied on a decision of this Court in A.P. State Financial Corporation vs. Ch.S.K. Nagaraju. But, in the said decision, the A.P. Amendment to Central Rule has not been adverted to. For the delay caused by the Court in disposing of injunction application which may be due to several reasons, if the time of one month lapses, it does not mean to say that the injunction order becomes non est. The purport of Rule 3-A of Order 39 C.P.C. is only to ensure that once injunction is granted by the Court below, every step has to be taken to dispose of the same within 30 days, but there cannot be any default clause read into the said provision to the effect that if the injunction petition is not disposed of within 30 days, then the said order becomes non est. If the injunction petition is not disposed of by the Court below within the above stipulated time, the party suffering the same has to agitate and if necessary by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution. But by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that merely because the injunction petition could not be disposed of by the Court within 30 days, the injunction will become non est? The injunction granted by a Court will remain in force until it is vacated either for the default of the party obtaining the same or on merits. Until .then, such an injunction order will be in operation and so long as the injunction is in operation and if there is a complaint that there is a breach of the same, it is the duty of the Civil Court to see that the injunction orders are implemented. Otherwise, the very rule of law will be at stake. The injunction orders are protective orders and a law-abiding party approaches the Court of law and if injunction subsists, it has got to be honoured and any breach shall be seriously viewed.

(2.) In the circumstances, the order of the Court below is set aside and the police protection is granted as sought for in LA. No.1139 of 1991. It is also directed that the Court below shall dispose of LA. No.1385 of 1990 within one month from the date of receipt of this order without granting undue adjournments. It is open to the Court below to dispose of the said application should there be any wilful dodging on the part of the plaintiff.

(3.) The revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.