SAHIL GUPTA Vs. SONIA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dtd. 19/10/2021 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, in civil suit bearing CS No. 5418 of 2021, titled as 'Sonia Gupta v. Rajesh Gupta and another', filed by respondent No.1 for permanent injunction; whereby application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Sec. 151 CPC, filed by the petitioner (defendant No.2) for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim injunction dtd. 24/9/2021 for gross noncompliance of provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and for filing a false affidavit before the trial Court regarding compliance under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, has been dismissed.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ad-interim injunction was granted by the trial Court without issuing notice but subject to compliance of provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The same was not complied with. Therefore, the petitioner had moved application for vacating the ad-interim injunction. However, that application has been wrongly declined by the trial Court vide the impugned order. The counsel has further submitted that since the provisions contained in Order 39 Rule 3 CPC are mandatory, therefore, in case of non-compliance of the said provisions, the interim injunction granted by the trial Court is required to be vacated.

(3.) This Court has heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. This Court does not find any substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. Of course, the ad-interim injunction was passed by the trial Court in this case prior to hearing the defendants while issuing notice. The interim injunction was also made subject to the compliance of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. It is not even the case of the petitioner that there was a total non-compliance of the said provisions by the plaintiff. On the contrary, it has come on record that in compliance of the said provisions, the plaintiff had sent the documents to the defendant/present petitioner through registered post. It is the claim of the petitioner that he never opened the said envelope, still he had filed an application claiming that the plaintiff/ respondent had not complied with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. How the petitioner could have come to the conclusion qua noncompliance of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC despite not opening the envelope received by him from the plaintiff through registered post, is beyond reasoning. Therefore, the application filed by the present petitioner before the trial Court itself was speculative in nature. Moreover, the petitioner claimed to have presented the said envelope before the Court in sealed condition. The Court has mentioned in the order that the said envelope was opened in the presence of the parties and it was found containing the copy of the plaint, copy of the application and the affidavit supporting these pleadings. The Court has further recorded that the relief of ad-interim injunction granted to the plaintiff was not granted on the basis of any other documents but was granted only on the basis of those documents, which have been supplied by the plaintiff in compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. Hence, the Court has found substantial compliance of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, and has, accordingly, refused to vacate the order only for alleged non-compliance of provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the petitioner has not even filed reply to the stay application. No written statement has been filed. On the contrary, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint. Hence, so far the petitioner has not even contested the application moved by the plaintiff for interim injunction; on merits. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality in the course of action adopted by the trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner has not been excluded from any contest to the interim injunction; as such. Rather the matter stands adjourned only for enabling the petitioner to file reply to the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Hence, even any prejudice is not shown to have been caused to the petitioner. Rather, the petitioner has chosen not to seek an early decision on application filed by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.