IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.1581-1582 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
MRG Realtors LLP ( formerly MRG Realtors Private Limited) A Limited Liability Partnership Firm Having its registered office at:
No.113, “Pallava Terrace”, Opp: Yediyur Lake, Kanakapura Main Road, 1st Cross, 6th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 082.
Represented by its Designated Partner Mr. R.P. Goyal.
. … Petitioner (By Sri. S.R. Tejas for Mr. Ganapathi Hegde, Advocate) AND:
1. Parkway Holdings Private Limited, (earlier known as IDEB Parkway Holdings Private Limited) A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its registered office at: 4C-121, 4th Cross, 2nd Main, Kasturinagar, Bengaluru – 560 043. Represented by its Director, Mr. P.K. Gajra.
2. Mr. P.K. Gajra, Director, Parkway Holdings Private Limited, Son of Mr. Hariram Gajra 4C-121, 4th Cross, 2nd Main, Kasturinagar, Bengaluru 560 043.
3. Mr. Mohd. Rashid Tehreem, Aged about 33 years, Son of Mr. Mohammed Khaja Residing at:-
#9-2-41, D/A/185, 186 Company Bagh, Langer Houz, Golconda, Hyderabad – 500008.
**** … Respondents These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside and quash the impugned order at Annexure A dated 21.12.2018 passed in O.S.No.1919/2018 by I Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Bengalurur rural District at Bengaluru, refusing to grant an ex-parte order of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner on the application, I.A.NO.2 and I.A.NO.3 and consequently pass an order of temporary injunction as prayed for in the said I.As. in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents, etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. S.R. Tejas for Mr. Ganapathi Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the Respondents.
3. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21/12/2018 by which the Trial Court has issued Emergent Notice on I.A.Nos.II and III to the Defendants in the Suit and has refused to grant an ex- parte injunction.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have perused the records. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
“After going through the materials available on record at this stage, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to provide an opportunity of being heard to the defendants before passing any orders on I.A.Nos. II and iII. Further the plaintiff has not made out the necessity of passing an emergent order on I.A.Nos. II and III by dispensing with its notice to the defendants, as contemplated U/O.39 Rule 3 of C.P.Code”
5. From a perusal of the relevant extract of the impugned order, it is evident that no reasons worth the name had been assigned by the Trial Court for refusing to grant the ex-parte temporary injunction.
6. In the case of ‘S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India’, (1990)4 SCC 594, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law. In ‘Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others’, (2010) 3 SCC 732, it has been held by the Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making.
7. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is clear that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non- application of mind and no reasons worth the name has been assigned by the Trial Court to reject the ex-parte injunction. The impugned order, therefore, is quashed and set aside and the Trial Court is directed to decide the applications filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by a speaking order within a period of 3 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed by this Court today.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*