HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.No.6060 of 2009 Dt.31.12.2009 Between: K.L.N.Moorthy and others .. Petitioners And Sri Balaji Educational Society, Puttur and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.No.6060 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order granting ex parte injunction by the court below in I.A.No.431 of 2009 in S.O.P.No.262 of 2009, dated 8.12.2009. Pending the said O.P., at the instance of the petitioners, ex parte interim injunction was granted by the learned District Judge, Chittoor, against the 8th respondent, who, according to the original petitioner, is a third party and is not a member of the 1st respondent society, nor he holds any office. The injunction prayed for against him is in the following manner as per the prayer in the application. “to grant ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the respondent/8th respondent third party, his men and agents from interfering with the functions of the institutions and society, including interference with the affairs of the petitioner society.” I have heard Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 4. The only question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether the learned District Judge was justified in granting ex parte interim injunction dated 8.12.2009 impugned herein. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that no reasons are assigned in support of the said ex parte injunction and in terms of provisions of Order 39, Rule 3 C.P.C., whenever the court grants ex parte interim injunction the reasons as to why notice is dispensed with must be mentioned in the order. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in SHIV KUMAR CHADHA v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI[1] and contends that the order impugned is totally unsustainable as there are hardly any reasons as to why the court below could not wait till the service of notice on the respondents before grant of ad interim temporary injunction. Learned counsel also has referred to several documents and aspects including pleadings in the O.P. in support of his contention that the petitioner herein has been working as Chief Executive Officer of the society and on account of differences among the members of the society has resulted into rival groups, who claim to be the management, and in any case the petitioner herein being Chief Executive Officer has been restrained from functioning as such on account of the said order. On the contrary, Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order impugned cannot be said to be without reasons as the court below has referred to the affidavit and material papers filed by the original petitioner in support of the said application and the reasons and the threat alleged in the said application has also been kept in mind by the court below while passing the aforesaid order. He therefore submits that the order cannot be said to be the one without reasons as contemplated under Order 39, Rule 3 C.P.C. So far as the contents of the O.P. are concerned, the learned counsel submits that respondents 1 to 7 were earlier in the governing body, but have ceased as such on 10.8.2009 and thereafter petitioners are in the management. The point for consideration is whether the order impugned suffers from the vice of not giving reasons in support of grant of ex parte interim injunction. Before considering the said aspect, it is to be noted that the present petitioner, who is aggrieved by the said order, is the Chief Executive Officer of the society and the society itself is the 1st petitioner in the O.P. and impleaded as 1st respondent in the C.R.P. No doubt, there appears to be a dispute with regard to managing the said society. The said O.P. filed before the court below is with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decretal order and order in favour of the petitioners against the respondents. (a) ordering the action of the respondents in managing the management of the 1st petitioner society by petitioners 2 to 7 is against to the rules of the memorandum of the 1st petitioner society and illegal; (b) consequently the respondents their men and agents and followers by granting permanent injunction from illegally interfering (other than due process of resolution and law) in the functioning of the 1st petitioner society by it’s present governing body; (c) directing the respondents to pay the costs of the petition; (d) and pass such other and further reliefs which deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the above case” From the contentions advanced on either side, it is apparent that both sides have produced documents and several contentions are advanced on the merits of the case. However, the scope of this revision is being limited, I am not referring to the said contentions, lest I should not make any observations in the interests of both sides in the said pending O.P. The aforesaid background of facts, therefore, clearly show that the petitioner herein (8th respondent in the O.P) is only an employee. Even according to him, the employer has obtained injunction restraining him from interfering with the functioning of the institution of the society including interference with the affairs of the society. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that though the said injunction as prayed for is only against the 8th respondent, he having been appointed by the other respondents in the O.P., the ex parte injunction actually affects other respondents in the O.P. though they are not made parties to the said injunction petition, they are clearly affected by the said order and have legitimate grievance to contend. The order impugned is extracted hereunder: “Heard advocate for petitioners. Perused the affidavit and other material papers. In view of the reasons stated and in view of the threat alleged, issue interim injunction against respondent and notice subject to compliance of Order 39, Rule 3 C.P.C. Adjourned to 23.12.2009.” The order impugned would show that the learned District Judge has not in so many words mentioned all the reasons as to why he is granting ex parte interim injunction. However, the averments in the above order is that in view of the reasons and in view of the threat alleged, mentioned in the said order. Reference in the impugned order, obviously relates to para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the injunction application, where, imminent threat was mentioned by the petitioners and in that view the injunction as prayed for was sought. However, I am of the opinion that keeping in view of the serious contest on factual aspects involved in the matter, it would be just and appropriate to relegate the parties to the court below so as to enable the petitioner to file a detailed counter affidavit together with documents, if any, and seek vacation or modification of the order of injunction. The impugned order is operating against the petitioner from 8.12.2009 and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is causing serious and immense hardship to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the other respondents also are aggrieved and affected by the said order though not impleaded in the injunction petition in spite of the fact that they are parties in the O.P. In that view of the matter, it is open for respondents 1 to 7 to seek their impleadment in the injunction petition and contest the same, as they are affected by the said ex parte injunction order. Petitioners, therefore, shall file counter affidavit together with the documents within ten days from today after duly serving the same on the respondent herein. The respondent shall file rejoinder or reply affidavit, if any, within one week thereafter. The learned District Judge shall hear and dispose of the I.A., on priority basis and in any case within two weeks from the reopening of the court after Sankranthi vacation, in accordance with law. The learned District Judge shall also permit respondents 1 to 7 in the O.P. to get impleaded in the said injunction petition and permit them to file counter affidavit together with the documents, if they so choose. The civil revision petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Office is to dispatch the copy of the order to the court below within three days. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 31.12.2009 Note: Issue copy within three days B.O. kpr [1] (1993) 3 SCC 161