HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA C.M.A. No:556 OF 2010 Dated: 7.7.2010 Between: 1. T.S. Kohli and another ..Appellants And 1. B. Pramod Kumar Reddy and others .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA C.M.A.No:556 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present CMA is filed against the exparte orders passed in I.A.No.986 of 2010 in O.S.No.131 of 2010 by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and the appellants herein are defendants 7 & 8 and respondents 2 to 7 are defendants 1 to 6 before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application viz., I.A.No.986 of 2010 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to grant ad interim injunction restraining defendants 1,2,7 and 8 and their agents, associates or any one on their behalf from alienating the petition schedule properties in favour of the third parties till disposal of the main suit. The Court below passed exparte interim injunction restraining defendants 1, 2, 7 & 8 and their agents, associates or any one on their behalf from alienating the schedule properties in favour of third parties. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the defendants 7 & 8. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Court below has not assigned any reasons for granting exparte interim injunction and the appellants may be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff opposed the said contention. The order under appeal is an exparte interim injunction. The general rule is that an order be passed only after hearing both the parties. An exparte injunction order is an exception. If the Court finds that object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay, it can issue an injunction exparte but that too only after recording reasons. The present suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule properties. In a case of this nature, the Court should record the reasons for granting injunction exparte. Since the order under appeal does not disclose any such reasons, the same can be set aside. Accordingly, the CMA is allowed setting aside the order under appeal. At this stage, the appellants-defendants have undertaken to file counter in the above I.A., before the Court below, within a period of two weeks from today. On such counter being filed, the I.A., shall be disposed of within a period of three weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date: 7th July, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA C.M.A. No:556 OF 2010 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 07.07.2010