The revision petitioners/plaintiffs have projected this civil revision petition as dissatisfied individuals in regard to the factum of non-disposal of I.A.No.926 of 2008 in O.S.No.362 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi.
2. The revision petitioners in the revision petitiion have sought for a direction being issued to the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, to dispose of the I.A.No.926 of 2008 in O.S.No.362 of 2008 pending on his file within the time frame to be determined by this Court.
3. This Court, as early as on 13.03.2009 by its order, has directed the learned District Munsif, Shencottah, in charge of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, to take up the I.A.No.926 of 2008 and I.A.No.1569 of 2008 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing due opportunities to both sides, within the period of two weeks from that day and report compliance before this Court without fail and has directed the Registry to list the civil revision petition on 26.03.2009.
4. The learned Principal District Munsif, in-charge, Tenkasi, in his letter signed on 25.03.2009, has inter alia, mentioned that 'I.A.No.1569/08 was heard in advance in 16.3.09 and posted for filing counter to 17.3.09 and on 17.3.09, the counter has been filed and that posted for enquiry last chance by 24.3.09 and on 24.3.09, the petitioner side arguments notes has been filed and posted the matter for respondent side arguments by 31.3.09.
5. At this stage, it is relevant to point out that in the order passed in this civil revision petition on 13.03.2009, this Court has given directions in regard to the disposal of I.A.No.1569 of 2008 and I.A.No.926 of 2008 in O.S.No.362 of 2008 within a period of two weeks from that day.
6. However, in the letter signed on 25.03.2009 and addressed by the learned Principal District Munsif, in-charge, Tenkasi, to this Registry, it is mentioned that this Court has given direction to dispose of I.A.No.1569 of 2008 in O.S.No.362 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, which is not correct one.
7. Further, on 26.03.2009, this Court after referring to the High Court Circular in R.O.C.No.2065/85/F1 Circular in P.Dis.No.101/85 dated 17.06.1985 and also the recent Circular in R.O.C.No.6640-A/2008/F1 in P.Dis.No.6/2009 dated 23.01.2009, in regard to the strict adherence of carrying out the directions of the High Court passed in its orders, this Court has issued directions to the learned District Munsif, Shencottah, in-charge of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, to take up the I.A.Nos.926 of 2008 and 1569 of 2008 in O.S.No.362 of 2008 and to pass appropriate final orders in accordance with law after providing due opportunities to both sides within a period of two weeks from that day and to report compliance before this Court without fail.
8. The learned Principal District Munsif, i/c, Tenkasi, in his letter dated 26.03.2009 addressed to this Registry has prayed for further time of two weeks so as to enable him to dispose of I.As as directed earlier by this Court.
9. Moreover, the learned District Munsif, Shencottah, in-charge of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, in his letter dated 31.03.2009 in D.No.220/09 addressed to this Registry, has stated that he has been placed in full additional charge of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi and Principal and Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi and that he has been attending the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi only on every Tuesday and not daily and that he has been attending the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi, on every Fridays and that he has advanced the hearing of I.A.No.1569 of 2008 which has been posted on 25.03.2009 suo motu on 16.03.2009 and posted the petition to 17.03.2009 Tuesday and on 17.03.2009, the respondent has filed counter and that he has posted the petition for enquiry to 24.03.2009 as last chance and on 24.03.2009, the petitioner side arguments notes have been filed and the matter has been posted to 31.03.2009 for the respondent side arguments and that on 31.03.2009, both side Counsel have appeared and on petition filed by the petitioners' Counsel on the ground that he want to argue more, the said I.A.No.1569 of 2008 has been posted to 02.04.2009 for further both sides arguments and moreover, since he felt that the petition in I.A.No.1569 of 2008 could be carried over beyond the time of 26.03.2009 fixed by the Honourable High Court, by way of abundant caution, he has applied for extension of time well in advance on 26.03.2009 and that he has no intention to violate or by-pass the order of the High Court etc. and that he will certainly dispose of the I.A.No.1569 of 2008 within 09.04.2009 without fail and that hereinafter, he will be very careful while carrying out the directions of the High Court.
10. On 02.04.2009, this Court, as a matter of prudence, has issued directions to the learned District Munsif, Shencottah, in-charge of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, to take up the I.A.Nos.926 of 2008 and 1569 of 2008 and to dispose of the same within 09.04.2009 and to report compliance without fail to this Court.
11. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in the civil revision petition, has taken a stand that the trial Court which has granted an interim injunction in I.A.No.926 of 2008 has not extended the same due to non-sitting of regular the District Munsif and that the respondent/defendant is standing in the way and not allowing the revision petitioners to use the second schedule property and further that, the in-charge District Munsif has not taken up the case and therefore, I.A.No.1569 of 2008 has been filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs praying for extension of interim injunction granted in I.A.No.926 of 2008 till 26.02.2009 and that the said I.A.No.1569 of 2008 has also not been taken up for consideration and the same being adjourned continuously.
12. In this connection, this Court pertinently points out that in the decision of this Court in Silver Granites v. Murugan and others reported in AIR 1995 MADRAS 217, wherein it is held that 'the Subordinate Judge cannot circumvent that provision and direct the posting of the interlocutory application beyond the period of 30 days granting injunction till that date. Unfortunately, the Subordinate Judge has not only failed to conform to the mandatory provision contained in the Code but also failed to obey an administrative Circular issued by this Court in P.Dis.No.88/90 dated 9-8-1990 that the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure should be strictly complied with by the subordinate Judiciary.'
13. Also this Court recalls the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in A.Venkaetasubbiah Naidu v. S.Chellappan reported in AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3032, at page 3033, whereby and whereunder it is observed that 'the period of injunction is not restricted to thirty days and that the Court, nonetheless legally obliged to pass final orders within thirty days and failure of Court to finally dispose of application of injunction within thirty days, an aggrieved party has a right of appeal notwithstanding the pendency of application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction.'
14. Further, in the aforesaid decision, at page 3036, the Honourable Supreme Court has held as follows:
"19. It is the acknowledged position of law that no party can be forced to suffer for the inaction of the Court or its omissions to act according to the procedure established by law. Under the normal circumstances the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal only against an order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39 of the Code in terms of Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. He cannot approach the appellate or revisional Court during the pendency of the application for the grant or vacation of temporary injunction. In such circumstances the party who does not get justice due to the inaction of the Court in following the mandate of law must have a remedy. So we are of the view that in a case where the mandate of Order 39, Rule 3-A of the Code is flouted, the aggrieved party, shall be entitled to the right of appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of a temporary injunction, against the order remaining in force. In such appeal, if preferred, the appellate Court shall be obliged to entertain the appeal and further to take note of the omission of the subordinate Court in complying with the provisions of Rule 3-A. In appropriate cases the appellate Court, apart from granting or vacating or modifying the order of such injunction, may suggest suitable action against the erring judicial officer, including recommendation to take steps for making adverse entry in his ACRs. Failure to decide the application or vacate the ex parte temporary injunction shall, for the purposes of the appeal, be deemed to be the final order passed on the application for temporary injunction, on the date of expiry of thirty days mentioned in the Rule."
15. Continuing further, in paragraph Nos.15 to 18 of the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, at page 3036, it is observed thus: "15. The Rule does not say that the period of the injunction order should be restricted by the Court to thirty days at the first instance, but the Court should pass final order on it within thirty days from the day on which the injunction was granted. Hence, the order does not ipso facto become illegal merely because it has not restricted to a period of thirty days or less.
16. Nonetheless, we have to consider the consequence, if any, on account of the Court failing to pass the final orders within thirty days as enjoined by Rule 3-A.
17. The aforesaid Rule casts a three-pronged protection to the party against whom the ex parte injunction order was passed. First is the legal obligation that the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application of injunction within the period of thirty days. Second is, the legal obligation that if for any valid reasons the Court could not finally dispose of the application within the aforesaid time the Court has to record the reasons thereof in writing.
18. What would happen if a Court does not do either of the courses? We have to bear in mind that in such a case the Court would have by-passed the three protective humps which the Legislature has provided for the safety of the person against whom the order was passed without affording him an opportunity to have a say in the matter. First is that the Court is obliged to give him notice before passing the order. It is only by way of a very exceptional contingency that the Court is empowered to by-pass the said protective measure. Second is the statutory obligation cast on the Court to pass final orders on the application within the period of thirty days. Here also it is only in very exceptional cases that the Court can by-pass such a rule in which cases the Legislature mandates on the Court to have adequate reasons for such by-passing and to record those reasons in writing. If that hump is also by-passed by the Court it is difficult to hold that the party affected by the order should necessarily be the sole sufferer."
16. On 06.04.2009, the learned Principal District Munsif, in-charge, Tenkasi, has addressed the letter to this Registry stating that as per the direction issued by this Court, he has disposed of I.A.Nos.1569 of 2008 and 926 of 2008 in O.S.No.362 of 2008 on his file on 06.04.2009.
17. To recapitulate, this Court points out that the Honourable High Court in R.O.C.No.2065/85/F1 Circular in P.Dis.No.101/85 dated 17.06.1985, has issued directions to all the Subordinate Courts that whenever any direction has been issued by this Court to the Subordinate Courts concerned, (1) they should dispose of the proceeding pending on their file within the time specified in the order of the High Court and report the fact to the High Court immediately after disposing of the proceeding concerned; and (2) should make a request to the High Court for extension of time for carrying out the directions well in advance of the date specified in the order of the High Court, stating the reasons therefor and the further time required, if for any reason the Subordinate Court concerned is not able to comply with the order of the High Court within the time specified.
18. Further, another Circular has been issued by the Honourable High Court in R.O.C.No.6640-A/2008/F1 in P.Dis.No.6/2009 dated 23.01.2009, reiterating the earlier Circular in R.O.C.No.2065/85/F1 in P.Dis.No.101/85 dated 17.06.1985, for strict adherence of the directions given by the Honourable High Court directing the Subordinate Courts to dispose of the proceedings pending on their file within the time specified in the order of the High Court and report the fact to the High Court immediately after disposing of the proceedings concerned, etc.
19. Generally speaking, an earnest endeavour must be made by the concerned Subordinate Courts to comply with the directions issued by the High Court in regard to the disposal of the proceedings pending on its file within the time determined in the order of the High Court and to report the said fact to the High Court immediately after disposing of the proceedings in issue.
20. It is not out of place to make a mention that in the letter in D.No.220/09 dated 31.03.2009, the learned Principal District Munsif, i/c, Tenkasi, has made no reference to I.A.No.926 of 2008 at all.
21. In our case on hand, the learned District Munsif, Shencottah, in- charge of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, neither finally disposed of I.A.No.926 of 2008 within thirty days from the date of granting of interim injunction, nor extended the interim injunction as prayed for in I.A.No.1569 of 2008, for any valid reasons.
22. When the time has been determined by the High Court issuing a direction in its order, one cannot indulge in assumption, presumption or conjectures in carrying over the matter in issue beyond the time fixed by the High Court and the extension of time sought for disposal of the matter in issue cannot be a ruse on any score. As a matter of fact, posting the matter beyond the time schedule fixed by the High Court is not a desirable one and cannot be appreciated by this Court.
23. In the light of the detailed discussions and observations made by this Court mentioned supra and inasmuch as the learned District Munsif, Shencottah, in-charge of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, in his letter dated 31.03.2009, has stated that he will be very careful in future in carrying out the directions of this Court and taking note of the fact that I.A.Nos.926 of 2008 and 1569 of 2008 in O.S.No.362 of 2008 have been disposed of on 06.04.2009, this Court disposes of the civil revision petition as no further orders are necessary in the matter in issue without costs. Resultantly, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
rsb To
1.The Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi.
2.The District Munsif, Shencottah.
3.The Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli District - for information.