IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 28.08.2008 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(PD) No.1792 of 2008 in M.P.No.1 of 2008 The Grace Promotors rep. by their Directors and Managers 1.Ashok Kumar 2.Mukundan 3.Murugesan 4.Anandan ... Petitioners/ Respondent/ Defendant Vs. 1.Doss 2.C.Devi 3.C.Bhuvaneswari 4.C.Gomathi 5.C.Rajeswari 6.C.Venkateshkumar 7.C.Umamaheswari ... Respondents/ Petitioners/ Plaintiffs This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Order dated 22.04.2008 in I.A.No.731 of 2008 in O.S.No.143 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Sivamani O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants to set aside the Order dated 22.04.2008 in I.A.No.731 of 2008 in O.S.No.143 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. 2. The defendants in O.S.No.143 of 2008 are the revision petitioners before this Court. The suit in O.S.No.143 of 2008 was filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Along with the suit, an application in I.A.No.731 of 2008 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The trial Court by order dated 22.04.2008 passed an exparte interim injunction and aggrieved by the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have also gone through the documents filed in support of his submissions. 4. The suit in O.S.No.143 of 2008 has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for injunction. Along with the suit an application in I.A.No.731 of 2008 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for temporary injunction. The trial Court by order dated 22.04.2008 passed an exparte order of injunction as follows:- "22.04.2008 Prima facie case before this Court through Document No.1 to 8. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioners. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant exparte ad-interim injunction till 20.06.2008. Notice to respondents on 20.06.2008. Batta immediately. Order 39 Rule 3 CPC to be complied with. It is trite law when an order of exparte injunction is passed by the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C., the Court must record reasons for its opinion, that the object of granting of injunction would be defeated by delay as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39. Therefore, this Court is umpteenth decision have repeatedly held that Court should record reasons while granting exparte order of injunction and passing cryptic orders like the one extracted above is void abinitio and could not be legally sustained. Therefore, the exparte injunction order passed by the Court below suffers from infirmity and it is contrary to mandatory provisions contained under Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC. 5. Hence, I am inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and the same is set aside. However, since the revision petitioners have already filed a counter in the injunction application before the Court below, the trial Court shall consider the application and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to all the parties. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants are directed to maintain status quo as on today till the disposal of the injunction application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. With above direction, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. rrg To The District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. 1 cc to Mr.P. Sivamani, Advocate, SR. 48844 CRP(PD)No.1792 of 2008 PVR (CO) kk 18/11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/