Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.62 seconds)Rt Rev Dr. V. Devasahyam, Bishop In ... vs D. Sahayadoss And 2 Ors. on 8 February, 2002
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court, in my considered opinion, the impugned order granted by the Court below, without assigning any reasons, is contrary to the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. and therefore, it is liable to set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.04.2012 made in I.A. No: 365 of 2012 in O.S. No: 160 of 2012 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore, is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh consideration. The Trial Court is directed to take up the interlocutory application afresh for consideration, hear both the parties and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no orders as to the costs.
Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 4 May, 1993
In the decision reported in 1999 (3) S.C.C. 161 Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & others, the Supreme Court held that,
" 32. Power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power vested in the court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. That is why Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code requires that in all cases the court shall, before grant of an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite-party, except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso has been added to the said rule saying that where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite-party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay....
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956
The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936
Such ex parte orders have far-reaching effect, as such a condition has been imposed that court must record reasons before passing such order. If it is held that the compliance with the proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the introduction of the proviso by the Parliament shall be a futile exercise and that part of Rule 3 will be a surplusage for all practical purposes. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, attracts the principle, that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not all. This principle was approved and accepted in well-known cases of Taylor v. Taylor24 and Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor25.
Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti Chavare And Ors on 4 March, 1975
This Court has also expressed the same view in respect of procedural requirement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare"
1