Madras High Court
Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. vs Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd., Glue And Acid ... on 8 December, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(2)CTC148
ORDER Jagadeesan, J.
1. This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit, O.S.No. 721 of 1994, on the file of the District Munsiffs Court, Poonamallee. The respondent herein had filed the above suit praying for an injunction restraining the defendant therein from removing the machinery, raw materials from the factory premises during the subsistence of industrial dispute pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The respondent also filed an application, I.A.No.2854 of 1994, seeking for an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The trial court has granted interim injunction and only against the said order the revision has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lower court has granted interim injunction on September 8, 1994, without following the statutory requirements prescribed under Order 39, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as it has failed to give any reason to grant an ex parte order. Not only an ex parte order was granted against the petitioner but also the court below without any reason had adjourned the matter periodically even though counter had been filed in IA.No.2853 of 1994 on January 6, 1995. When Order 39, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, makes it clear that the court should make an endeavour to dispose of the interlocutory application within thirty days from the date of the order, wherever an ex parte order has been granted. The lower court on March 9, 1995, had adjourned the matter to March 24, 1995, and subsequently to April 20, 1995, June 28, 1995, August 4, 1995, September 15, 1995, and October 20, 1995. On more than one occasion the court below had adjourned the matter beyond thirty days and hence the court below is not inclined to dispose of the matter as provided under Order 39, Rule 3-A of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the two judgments in Sri Suryanarayana Paper and Boards P. Ltd. v. V. Padmakumar, and Silver Granites v. Murugan, .
3. I have perused the order of the court below. I heard both counsel. They relied upon the judgments referred to above. I am of the view that the order of the court below dated September 8, 1994, has to be set aside, since the lower court has passed the order contrary to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the respondent also conceded that the lower court has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code. But the only pica of the respondent is that merely because the lower court has not followed the procedure the respondent should not be prejudiced. At this stage, I do not think the respondent's interest can be safeguarded by sustaining the illegal order or by passing any direction. Hence, the order of the court below dated September 8, 1994, in the interlocutory application is set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the suit itself is not maintainable, since the matter is pending before the Industrial Tribunal. Wherever an industrial dispute is pending, the parties cannot seek for any relief before the civil court. She also relied upon the two judgments in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant, and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke, 1975 (48) FJR 252; 1975 (2) LLJ 445 SC. I do not think that this Court can enter into the discussion with regard to the maintainability of the suit at this stage. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to take all the pleas before the trial court.
5. For the reasons stated above, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order in IA.No.2854 of 1994 in O.S.No.721 of 1994, dated September 8, 1994, on the file of the District Munsiffs Court, Poonamallee, is set aside and the LA. is remanded to the lower court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. No costs.