Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Syed Zafar Ali And Anr. vs Saeed Ahmad Alias Dhungi And Ors. on 25 April, 2006 cites

H. Bevis And Co. vs Ram Behari And Ors. on 28 September, 1950

9. Without going into the controversies of the observation of the Hon'ble single Judge that Rule 3 is not an independent provision nor it is an enabling provision but is only in aid of exercise of the power under Rules 1 and 2, the very procedure which it prescribes, does enable the Court to grant an Injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party. It also prescribes to the Court to direct issuance of notice to the other party before grant of an injunction. The exceptional power to the Court for grant of ex parte injunction order is conferred only by Rule 3 and this Rule thus may be treated also to be in aid to Section 94(c) as well as Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. Therefore, to identify this Rule as purely procedural Rule and holding it to be only an enabling provision may be an erroneous proposition. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case of H. Bevis & Co. (supra) has also held that whenever an ex parte injunction is issued the application is disposed of finally and the order is made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 as the case may be. It is worthwhile to find out here itself as to which provision of the Court enables the Court to pass an ex parte injunction order thus disposing of the injunction application in the absence of the defendant, ex parte.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1