SOMASUNDARA MUDALI Vs. THIRUPPATHURAN ALIAS NAGAPPA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes before us upon a reference by Rajamannar, J., of a point to the Chief Justice for consideration by a Bench. The point is a short one and is as follows : When an application is made ex park by an appellant in an appeal for an injunction restraining the respondent from doing some act pending the disposal of the appeal and the Court grants are interim order of injunction until disposal of the application, and upon the hearing of the application the injunction is confirmed or continued until disposal of the appeal, whether batta can be demanded in addition to the batta which was paid upon the passing of the interim order.

(2.) It would seem that on the 19 October, 1932, Bardswell, J., in C.M.P. No. 1431 of 1932 expressed the opinion that fresh batta is payable upon the issue of a final injunction, even though batta had already been paid after the issue of an interim injunction. The above report is found in (1932) 36 L. W. page 48 of the Summary of Recent Cases. Unfortunately, the record in the C.M.P. is not.now available in the office.

(3.) Clearly, when an injunction is directed by a Court upon an exarte application notice of that order must be served upon the respondent, in order that he should be apprised of the injunction passed against him. In such circumstances, the party in whose favour the order is made, is required, and rightly so, by the office to pay the necessary amount for batta. When the application itself is heard by the Court in the presence of counsel, not only for the applicant but also for the respondent, and an order is made, it is then that exception is taken to a fresh demand being made for additional batta for service of the injunction continued or confirmed. at the hearing of the application itself.