Head both sides.
2. The revision petitioners/respondents 2 and 3 have preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 05.01.2009 in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, granting the relief of ad-interim injunction in an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. filed by the respondents praying for the relief of ad-interim injunction.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the revision petitioners, who are 2 and 3 defendants in the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2009, have purchased the suit property from the first defendant even before filing of the suit and the order passed by the trial court on 05.01.2009 is bereft of quantitative and qualitative details in regard to the grant of the relief of ad-interim injunction and contends that the said order is a non- speaking one and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.
4. In support of his contention that this Court can exercise its powers under Article
227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 dated 05.01.2009, he relies on the decision of this Court in Jayakumari Vs. K.Venugopalraj and others (2009(3) MLJ 22 at page 23), wherein it is inter alia held that "But, there is no hard and fast rule in this regard and each case is to be considered on its own merits and on the basis of its facts and circumstances-There are a lot of exceptions to the general rule and in spite of having an alternative remedy and inspite of guilty of laches, still Courts can entertain petitions under
Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India to render complete and fair justice - Only in extraordinary circumstances, the Courts will entertain such petitions filed under
Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, but, it cannot be said that no petition is maintainable because of the alternative remedy available and petition should be dismissed in limini because of laches."
5. It is not in dispute that the respondents, before the trial court, have filed a suit for specific performance, enforcing the agreement of sale dated 03.10.2008 and the the same is pending. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that the first respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1 of 2009 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. praying for the relief of ad-interim injunction and the trial court after hearing the learned Counsel for the respondents/petitioners/ plaintiffs, has granted the ad-interim injunction relief till 19.01.2009 etc. Further, it transpires that in the said I.A.No.1 of 2009, the trial court has also passed a detailed order on 19.01.2009 inter alia stating that 'there is sufficient compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C. etc. and that the previous injunction order has been extended till 04.02.2009'. As against the order passed by the trial court 19.01.2009, the revision petitioners have not taken any further proceedings in the manner known to law.
6. A perusal of the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.1 of 2009 dated 05.01.2009 indicates that the said order is a non-speaking one in the considered opinion of this Court. The qualitative and quantitative details for the grant of interim relief of ad-interim injunction are not found in the order of the trial court passed in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 dated 05.01.2009. In fact, the order dated 05.01.2009 in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 reads as follows:
'Heard the counsel for the petitioner. Documents perused I am satisfied that the petitioner is having prima facie case. I am also satisfied that if ad interim injunction is not granted petitioner would be put to great hardship. Ad interim injunction granted till 19.01.2009.'
7. As a matter of fact, the power of discretionary relief under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised based on the overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral fashion.
8. The revision petitioners do have a right to prefer an appeal as against the order dated 05.01.2009 in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 as per Order 43 Rule (1)(r) of C.P.C. Besides this remedy, the revision petitioners have got a right to project an application praying the trial court to vary the order of injunction granted in I.A.No.1 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2009 dated 05.01.2009, as per order 39 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Suffice it point out for this Court that the remedies provided under Order 39 Rule 4 of C.P.C. and Order 43 Rule (1)(r) of C.P.C. are concurrent. If that be the case, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and further this Court opines that this is not a fit case, where this Court can exercise its discretionary powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and resultantly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The revision petitioners are given the liberty to approach the competent forum seeking appropriate remedy in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
nbj To
1.Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur.
2.Sub Assistant Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
to watch and report