This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Defendant against the exparte order dated 9.3.2007 passed in IA.NO.201/2007 in OS.No.75/2007 by the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi, granting interim injunction.
2. The brief facts as stated by the Petitioner are given below:- The Petitioner is the owner of S.No.118/4 of Koothur Village, Manachanallur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District and the Respondent/Plaintiff is the owner of the adjacent land in S.No.118/1 and 119/10. The Respondent had prepared a layout and submitted to the Director of Town and Country Planning and the layout was sanctioned and as per the said layout the east west road of 23 ft. width was to stretch upto the land of the Petitioner. The Respondent executed a gift deed dated 20.1.2004 in favour of his Excellency, the Governor of Tamil Nadu representing the President, Koothur Panchayat and registered the same as Document No.95/2004. The said gift deed is in accordance with the sanctioned layout the east west road of 23 feet width which extends upto to the Petitioner's land.
3. The Respondent had executed a Power of Attorney dated 11.2.2004 in favour of one D.Subramanian and in the said power, site No.3A and 19C were formed contrary to the approved layout as well as the registered gift deed. The Respondent also executed a rectification deed dated 18.5.2004 claiming that by mistake a portion reserved for his personal use coming within the east west road had been described as road. After the rectification deed, a fresh power of attorney had been executed authorising Subramanian to deal with this property.
4. Despite the direction of the Director of Town and Country Planning to the Panchayat in the presence of Power of Attorney Subramanian to form the road as per the original layout and the gift deed, the road was not formed which necessitated the Petitioner to approach the Principal Bench of this court in WP.No.25414/2004 to enforce the sanctioned layout. By order dated 8.9.2004, this court has directed the authorities to consider the representation given by the Petitioner dated 10.6.2004 for implementing the sanctioned layout within a period of two months, but despite the said direction, the authorities failed to implement the sanctioned layout. The contempt proceedings initiated against the Respondent was closed on the representation made that there was no obstruction to proceed to the land of the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that he had prepared a layout and the east west road of 23 ft. has been shown as the access to his lands from the Highways and the Joint Director of Town and Country Planning had sanctioned the layout.
5. While facts are as such, the Respondent through his power holder has filed the present suit in OS.NO.75/2007 before the District Munsif, Lalgudi against the Petitioner for permanent injunction restraining him from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by laying a new road or by claiming that 23 feet layout road extends through the suit property. Pending the suit, the Respondent has filed an application in IA.No.201/2003 seeking for an order of interim injunction. The court below has granted interim injunction on 9.3.2007 as against which this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Defendant.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the order passed by the court below is in violation of mandatory provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC as it is without any reason and hence it is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel cited a few decisions of this court rendered in the cases of The Andhra Social & Cultural Association by B.Veeriah General Secretary [2000-11-CTC-235], M/s.RR/Techno Mechanicals (P) Limited and another Vs. Democratic Labour Union [1996-11-CTC-684] and Rt.Rev.Dr.V.Devasaayam, Bishop in Madras CSI and another Vs. D.Sahayadoss and 2 others [2002-1-CTC-458] in support of his contention.
7. The order passed by the court below is extracted below:- "Heard. Documents perused. The averments set out in the affidavit and more particularly the notice of inspection D.NO.6 and the inspection report D.NO.7 would go to show that there is a prima facie in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, notice and ad interim injunction till 27.3.2007 Or.39 R3 to be complied with."
8. It is the bounden duty of the court below to examine in detail with reference to the specific materials on record, to find out whether prima facie case is made out or not and in whose favour the balance of convenience lies and whether the Petitioner suffers an irreparable loss if interim injunction is refused. The court below is not justified in granting interim injunction without examining the matter in detail by merely saying that prima facie case was made out. In the instant case, the relief in the main suit itself is for permanent injunction, then in such suit temporary injunction must be granted in a cautious manner, because by granting temporary injunction the relief in the main suit itself is being granted.
9. In the case of Delhi Development Authorities Vs. Skipper Constructions Co. Pvt Limited [AIR-1996-SC-2005], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the interim order of injunction should not be granted in the mechanical order by the court without realising the harm such order cause to the other side and in some cases to public interest.
10. Now the question for consideration is as to whether the impugned order can be interfered by exercising the constitutional remedy under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India or the aggrieved party has to go before the same court for vacation of the interim order or to file an appeal before the appellate court to vindicate their grievance.
11. It is to be noted that grant of 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 that 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.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the order of the court below cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is set aside and the court below is directed to dispose of the application afresh, as expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity to both sides on merits and in accordance with law.
13. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Srcm To: The District Munsif, Lalgudi.