THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2797 OF 2011 DATED 29TH AUGUST, 2011 BETWEEN Mr.Ibrahim …Petitioner And Mr.Pashamiya and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2797 OF 2011 ORDER: The second defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2011 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The plaintiff in the suit filed I.A.No.15 of 2011 in O.S.No.3 of 2011 seeking temporary injunction. The Court below granted an ex parte temporary injunction on the said application on 18.01.2011 directing compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Alleging non-compliance with the said statutory provision, the defendants in the suit filed I.A.No.127 of 2011 in O.S.No.3 of 2011 to vacate the ex parte injunction order dated 18.01.2011. By order dated 21.06.2011, the Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the second defendant in the suit is before this Court by way of this revision petition. Sri T.Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the statutory provision which requires the party obtaining the ex parte injunction to deliver to the opposite parties, copies of the documents on which he relied. The learned counsel pointed out that in the plaint copy sent to his client, the appended list of documents mentioned that a xerox copy of the original title deed was also filed. However, as the said document was not furnished by the plaintiff, the learned counsel asserted that there was non-compliance with the statutory requirement, warranting the vacating of the ex parte injunction order. He placed reliance on NIKESH v. MALATHI BAI[1] wherein this Court held that all documents in the proviso to Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of the CPC should be served personally or by registered post and failure to do so would amount to non-compliance with the mandatory provision. There is no dispute with the above proposition. However, the order passed by the Court below dismissing the subject application reflects that the original title deed which was mentioned at Sl.No.3 in the list of documents appended to the plaint was not actually filed and document No.3 was struck off in the plaint filed in the Court. As rightly pointed out by the Court below, it appears that the plaintiff erroneously failed to strike out the mention of the said document in the copies of the plaint sent by him to the defendants. Order XXXIX Rule 3 proviso (a) (iii) CPC speaks of copies of the documents on which the applicant relies being delivered to the opposite party. As the document in question, being the original title deed, was not filed in the Court along with the plaint and the said document was not relied upon, failure to furnish a copy thereof to the defendants does not amount to non- compliance with the statutory requirements of the provision. The order under revision therefore does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 29TH AUGUST, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] 1996 (4) ALD 1225