KRISHAN KUMAR AGARWALA Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application filed by the respondents for vacation of the ex parte interim order of injunction issued against them, the two questions that have arisen for consideration are - (a) whether the ex parte interim order has automatically stood vacated on the ground of the application for vacation not having been disposed of within the period specified in Clause(3) of Article 226, and (b) whether on the facts acrd circumstances and the relevant law on the point, the order, if still in operation, should be discharged or otherwise altered, or, if the order is no longer in operation, a fresh interim order is warranted.

(2.) Where an interim order has been made after giving the party affected an opportunity of being heard, such an order isordinarilynot to be discharged or varied unless such discharge or variation has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship. But when such an interim order has been made ex parte without giving the party affected an opportunity of being heard, the aggrieved party is entitled to object to its continuance and to ask for its vacation or variation on any ground available under the facts and the law and not merely on the ground of any change of circumstances or the order causing undue hardship. This principle has now been expressly enacted in the second Proviso to Rule 4 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act of 1976 and even though the provisions of the Code do not apply ex proprio vigore to the proceedings under Article 226, the principle contained in the Proviso is so eminently reasonable as to warrant universal application. The respondents, therefore, in this case, are entitled to ask for vacation on the ground that such order ought not to have been made under the facts and the law.

(3.) As to the first question, namely, automatic vacation of an ex parte interim order on the ground of non-disposal of an application for its vacation within the period specified in Article 226(3), Mr. Pal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged several grounds against such automatic vacation and has argued the matter with admirable dexterity.