Madras High Court
The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ... vs Mrs. Prema R. Elizabeth on 5 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)2MLJ286
ORDER Abdul Hadi, J.
1. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Port Trust. The suit O.S. No. 1719 of 1993 has been filed by the respondent herein. The said suit is for a declaration that the Port Trust's communication dated 22.12.1992 to the plaintiff pursuant to Board's resolution dated 14.12.1992 is contrary to the provisions of the Madras Port Trusts Act and the Major Port Trusts Act and for a consequential injunction, restraining defendants 2 to 5 not to act as per the abovesaid resolution.
2. The respondent/plaintiff admittedly was one of the five legal advisers to the Madras Port Trust and her term expired on 31.124992 itself. Pursuant to the abovesaid resolution dated 14.12.1992 three out of the abovesaid five legal advisers alone were retained for yet another term and the term of two others including the respondent/plaintiff was not extended. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the said suit after she having failed in a W.P. No. 2647 of 1993 filed by her in this Court. In the said suit in I. A. No. 3256 of 1993, she got an ex parte temporary injunction, restraining the petitioners herein from acting in accordance with the abovesaid resolution dated 14.12.1992. The temporary injunction was granted on 26.2.1993. It appears subsequently, the interim injunction was extended till 15.3.1993. The said injunction appears to have been further extended till 30.3.1993 and once again on 30.3.1993 the said injunction was extended till 19.4.1993 and once again on 19.4.1993 the said injunction is said to have been extended till 16.7.1993. But, on or about 18.3.1993, the petitioner filed a counter to the said I.A. No. 3256 of 1993 and also filed a I.A. No. 5023 of 1993 for vacating the abovesaid injunction. Despite the counter in the abovesaid I.A., the court below, according to the petitioners herein, was going on extending the injunction without hearing the abovesaid interlocutory applications finally. In the circumstances, alone the present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 13.4.1993 and this Court was pleased to grant interim stay of the abovesaid injunction on 29.4.1993. Now C.M.P. No. 8351 of 1993 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for vacating the said stay. The learned Counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice the decision in Rathinam v. Pavathal (1991)2 L.W. 688, and the relevant provisions of Order 39, Rule 3-A, C.P.C. The said decision is also rendered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and there too the revision was filed against the order of injunction passed by the lower court and the allegation therein also was that the petition for interim injunction was being merely adjourned for several hearings without giving a final disposal to that petition. In that decision, in such a situation this Court has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In that connection, the learned Judge observed as follows:
It is true that the petitioners have remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure. When they have invoked such alternative remedy and finding that they could not get justice speedily then only they have filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution and this is quite obvious from the facts narrated above. Under such circumstances, this Court is not helpless to remedy the situation. If Article 227 of the Constitution is not available to remedy situations like this, I fail to understand under what better circumstances, Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked. It may not be out of place to just point out that Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure enumerates the circumstances under which temporary injunction can be granted. Rule 3 directs the issue of notice to the opposite party before granting injunction and in the event of grave urgency requiring grant of injunction without notice, the Court shall record the reason explaining the object of granting the injunction and Rule 3-A, further enjoins the Court to dispose of the application for injunction within 30 days. In spite of all these inbuilt precautions, the District Judge has thrown overboard all these principles and granted interim injunction and adding insult to the injury, continued the injunction even though the abuse of process of court by the plaintiff/petitioner before him was clearly brought to his notice and also established before him.
3. In the present case also, as indicated above, the court below was going on adjourning the hearings of the I.A. No. 3256 of 1993 and extending the injunction despite the fact that counter was filed on or before 18.3.1993 itself and I.A. No. 5023 of 1993 was also filed at about that time for vacating the interim injunction granted by the court below. In the circumstances, the abovesaid decision squarely applies to the present case and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I direct the court below to finally dispose of I.A. Nos. 3256 of 1993 and 5023 of 1993 as expeditiously as possible within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.