RABINDRA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. SUJATA MOHAPATRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaleswar in I.A. No. 7 of 2012 arising out of C.S. No. 5 of 2012, wherein, the learned Civil Judge granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in exercise of power conferred under Order 39 Rule 3, C.P.C. restraining the appellant and others from alienating the suit property during pendency of the suit.

(2.) CIVIL Suit No. 5 of 2012 has been filed by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 for partition of the suit schedule property, to declare the gift deed executed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and different sale deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 as null and void and for permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. (I.A. No. 7 of 2012) praying, inter alia, to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit property. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 3, C.P.C. along with the said interim application with a prayer to pass an ex parte ad interim injunction. Entertaining the aforesaid applications, the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 16.01.2012 passed an ex parte interim order restraining the opposite parties therein, i.e., the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from alienating any part of the suit property during pendency of the suit. The defendant No. 5 (appellant) being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE rules of natural justice demand that when an application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. is made before a court, the person(s) against whom the relief is sought for must be given an opportunity of being heard. But, situation/circumstance may demand immediate interference of the court to pass an order, which if not passed may occasion failure of justice and would defeat the very purpose of making such application. In such a situation, the Court may proceed to entertain the application for interim injunction filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. before issuance of notice to person(s) against whom the relief is sought for. This is the requirement of Rule 3. However, proviso to Rule 3 is introduced in order to restrict the court to exercise such power liberally, which requires the court to record its reason for postponement of notice when it proposes to pass an ex -parte ad -interim order of injunction. Thus, it is quite clear that exercise of power under Rule 3 of Order 39, C.P.C. is available only for issuance and/or postponement of notice and it has nothing to do with passing of an order of interim injunction. Accordingly, an ex -parte ad interim order of injunction can only be passed in exercise of power conferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. In the case of A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu -v - S. Chellappan and others, reported in : AIR 2000 SC 3032, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with similar situation held as under: