Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The suit in O.S. No.645/2018 was listed before the learned Civil Court along with I.A. No.1 filed by the appellant for an ad-interim ex parte injunction against alienation of such sites by the respondent No.1. The learned Civil Court by its impugned order dated 28.04.2018 issued emergent notice on I.A. No.1 and suit notice and summons to the defendants/respondents. The learned Civil Court by the impugned order, while concisely recording the plaint averments, concluded that it would be just and necessary to hear the defendants before the grant of ad interim ex parte injunction and thus refused ad interim ex-parte order of injunction against alienation. The learned Civil Court, in refusing to grant ad interim ex-parte injunction, observed that the appellant had paid Rs. 20,92,000/- out of the agreed total sale consideration of Rs.3,50,92,000/-, but the sale deeds executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the other defendants/respondents indicate that respondent No.1 had transferred each site for a consideration of more than Rs.10,00,000/-. The appeal is filed impugning this order.

4. This Court, when the appeal was listed on 10.05.2018, considered the application for interim injunction and granted ex-parte injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule properties till the next date of hearing, and this order has been extended from time to time. The respondent No.1 has filed application for vacating of this interim order along with objections statement to the application filed by the appellant for interim injunction.

19. An appeal against an 'Order', which is not a decree, could only lie if provided for under the provisions of the CPC. Section 104 of CPC expressly states that an appeal shall lie only from the orders enumerated therein, or otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders. However, though the order either granting or refusing to grant temporary injunction are orders under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, and in that sense both orders are of the same genus, the order refusing to grant ad interim ex-parte injunction, because of the aforesaid factors, is a different species. If the exercise of jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC refusing to grant ex-parte ad interim order of injunction is a separate and distinct "Order" as

- 20 -

scheme under Order XXXIX of CPC, or any part thereof, redundant or give room to contradictory jurisdictions.

20. A Civil Court in deciding either to grant or not to grant an ad interim ex parte injunction without issuing a notice, is applying its judicial mind, additionally, to assess, and express a formal decision on, whether the object of grant of injunction would be defeated by delay based on the information gleaned from the plaintiff's pleadings; such assessment and decision, though formal, could only be a very nascent order. A Court, even after refusing an order of ad interim ex-parte injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC is still seized of the application for grant of temporary injunction. The Court revisits the question of grant of ad interim injunction once the service of notice is complete. This construction/interpretation of the Scheme would be a harmonious reading of the Scheme under Order XXXIX of CPC without giving room for redundancy or conflict of jurisdictions. Of course, if there is any irregularity in the Court assessing and expressing a formal decision on whether the object of grant of injunction would be defeated by delay, the same would be subject to narrower and limited scrutiny under the supervisory jurisdiction available to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.