IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.M.A.No.1497 OF 2004 Date:25-02-2011 Between:- P.B.Arnold .. Appellant/Respondent And Dr.N.J.Prabhakar and others .. Respondents/Petitioners JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, C.P.C.) is directed against the order dated 30-04-2004 in I.A.No.84 of 2004 in O.P.No.2 of 2004 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the respondents are the petitioners in the said application. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the application. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. No representation for the respondent and hence, the arguments of the respondent are closed. 4. The Interlocutory Application was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with 151 C.P.C. for restraining the respondent from interfering with the management and affairs of the Government Council of M.B.Churches and M.B.Property Association Pvt.Ltd in any manner claiming to be the President or G.P.A. Holder or Treasurer, or even as a member of the M.B.Churches and from conducting any general body or executive body meeting of the Governing council till the disposal of the main O.P. The order and other relevant contents show that a notice was issued to the respondent for his appearance in the I.A. but it was not returned back but still earlier temporary injunction order passed was made absolute. It does not provide that any speaking order was passed. 5. Therefore, it is to be considered as to whether the order passed is tenable or not. It is surprising that without service of notice upon the respondent, or without waiting till the notice was served on the respondent, the interim order passed earlier was made absolute as reflected in the order, which is definetly not tenable. The officer should have taken into consideration minimum requirements while passing the order. When the order is not a speaking order and it was passed without serving of notice on the respondent for his appearance before the Court, it has to be set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court with a direction to the lower Court to give an opportunity to the respondent for his appearance and make necessary representation and hear both the parties and pass speaking order taking into consideration all relevant factors. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________​_____ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 25th February, 2011 AMD