- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Road Flying Carrier And Another v. The General Electric Company Of India Ltd. .
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was filed by the defendant-appellants against an ex parte order of the trial court that issued a mandatory injunction directing the appellants to deliver custody of goods entrusted to them for transportation to the plaintiff-respondent. The appellants' principal grievance was that the ex parte injunction was granted without complying with Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure (O. 39, R. 3, C.P.C.), which they contended is mandatory. The trial court, while issuing the injunction, did not record reasons explaining why notice could not be served; however it directed the plaintiff-respondent to deposit Rs. 4,11,818 (as per Annexure 6) in fixed deposit receipts endorsed in the name of the court to safeguard the parties' interests. On appeal, the court examined whether the statutory requirements for issuing an ex parte injunction had been satisfied and ultimately set aside the impugned order while making interim directions regarding delivery of goods, deposit, filing of reply and expedited disposal of the injunction application by the trial court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a court can grant an ex parte (mandatory) injunction without complying with Rule 3 of Order 39, C.P.C., including the requirement to record reasons why notice cannot be served because delay would defeat the object of the injunction.
- Whether the mere existence of material on the record is sufficient to substitute for the statutory requirement of recording reasons in the order granting ex parte relief.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The injunction was passed ex parte without complying with the mandatory provisions of Order 39, Rule 3, C.P.C., and therefore the order is infirm.
Respondent's Arguments
- Learned counsel for the respondent (Sri R.K. Agrawal) submitted that even though reasons were not explicitly mentioned in the order, there was material on record sufficient for the court to form the opinion necessary to grant an ex parte injunction.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Collector of Monghyr v. Keshav Prasad Goenka, AIR 1962 SC 1694 | Distinction between recording a conclusion and recording the reasons for that conclusion; statutory requirement to state reasons in the order cannot be satisfied merely by factual recitals or available material. | The court relied on the principle that the presence of material on record does not substitute for the statutory requirement that reasons be recorded in the order; thus absence of recorded reasons rendered the ex parte order unsustainable. |
| F.A.F.O. No. 293 of 1989 (Division Bench of this Court) | Held that an ex parte injunction cannot be granted unless Rule 3 of Order 39 is complied with. | The court treated this decision as authority supporting the proposition that R.3 must be complied with before granting ex parte injunctions and applied it to set aside the impugned order. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the impugned order and found no recorded reasons explaining why an ex parte injunction was necessary or why notice could not be served. It observed that Rule 3 of Order 39, C.P.C. permits ex parte injunctions only when the court is of the opinion that the object of granting an injunction would be defeated by delay, and even in such circumstances the court must record the reasons for that opinion.
The court rejected the respondent's submission that the mere presence of material on the record sufficed in place of recorded reasons. Citing Collector of Monghyr v. Keshav Prasad Goenka, the court explained the legal distinction between stating a conclusion and recording the reasons that led to that conclusion, and held that statutory compliance requires reasons to be set out in the order itself. The court also relied on a prior Division Bench decision (F.A.F.O. No. 293 of 1989) of this Court that held an ex parte injunction cannot be granted unless R.3 of O.39 is complied with.
Because the trial court failed to record reasons for the ex parte order, the appellate court concluded the impugned order could not be sustained. At the same time, the appellate court noted the trial court had taken steps to protect both parties by directing the plaintiff-respondent to deposit Rs. 4,11,818 in fixed deposit receipts endorsed to the court. Balancing the procedural infirmity with the protective monetary deposit, the appellate court set aside the ex parte order but issued interim directions: upon deposit as directed, the appellants were ordered to deliver the goods within one week, to file a reply to the interim injunction application within one week, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the injunction matter within two weeks after hearing both parties. The deposit was to remain with the court until final disposal.
Finally, the court emphasized that ex parte injunctions are exceptional and subordinate courts must not grant them routinely without complying with the mandatory requirements of R.3 of O.39, C.P.C.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: Appeal allowed; the ex parte mandatory injunction granted by the trial court is set aside for failure to record reasons as required by Rule 3 of Order 39, C.P.C.
Direct Consequences and Directions:
- The impugned ex parte order is set aside.
- Because the plaintiff-respondent has deposited Rs. 4,11,818 in fixed deposit receipts endorsed to the court (as directed by the trial court), the appellants are directed to deliver the goods to the plaintiff-respondent within one week of this appellate order.
- The appellants must file a reply to the interim injunction application within one week; the trial court is directed to dispose of the injunction application within two weeks after hearing both parties. The deposited amount shall remain in court until disposal of the injunction application.
- A certified copy of the appellate order shall be provided to the parties on payment of requisite charges within three days.
Broader Implications:
- The court reiterated and reinforced the procedural requirement that ex parte injunctions are exceptional and that subordinate courts must comply with R.3 of O.39, C.P.C., including recording reasons when issuing such orders.
- The opinion emphasizes adherence to statutory procedural safeguards; it admonishes lower courts against routine issuance of ex parte injunctions without the mandatory recording of reasons. The decision enforces existing statutory and precedential rules rather than announcing a novel legal principle.
1. This is an appeal by the defendant-appellants against the order passed ex parte, issuing a mandatory injunction against it to deliver the custody of the goods entrusted to it for purpose of transport by the plaintiff. The main grievance of the appellants is that the order was passed ex parte without complying with the provisions of O. 39, R. 3, C.P.C, which are mandatory in nature.
2. On a perusal of the order impugned herein, we find that although court below has tried to safeguard the interest of both the parties; but it has failed to record any reason as to why it became necessary to pass an ex parte injunction without serving notice on the respondent. Rule 3 of O. 39, C.P.C lays down that only in case where it appears to the Court that object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay it has no power to issue ex parte order of injunction. In that circumstance also the court has to record reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay. Sri R.K Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent has however, submitted that even if reasons have not been mentioned, yet there was material, which was enough for forming its opinion to grant ex parte injunction order. We cannot agree to this submission, for the simple reasons that where law requires recording of reasons for doing a particular act, the mere presence of material on the record is not sufficient; but it must also be shown that the court has applied its mind to that material. Reasons must find a place in the order ultimately passed by a court. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Monghyr v. Keshav Prasad Goenka, AIR 1962 SC 1694. In para 16 of the report a similar argument was raised before the Supreme Court and was repelled in the following words:
“To suggest that by a recital of the nature of the repairs required to be carried out and employing the language of S. 5-A(j) the officer has recorded his reason for invoking S. 5-A is to confuse the recording of the conclusion of the officer with the reasons for which he arrived at that conclusion. Besides just as it would not be open to argument that the terms of S. 5-A(1) will be attracted to cases where there is factually an emergent need for reparis of the type envisaged by the section but the Collector does not so record in his order; similarly the factual existence of reasons for the Collector's conclusion would not avail where he does not comply with the statutory requirement of stating them in his order.”
3. Besides the above case, recently in F.A.F.O No. 293 of 1989, a Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us was a member) precisely the same question arose and it was held that the ex parte injunction cannot be granted unless R. 3 of O. 39 is complied with.
4. In view of this proposition of law, we are not inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, as the law requires reasons to be recorded by the court, which has not been done and, therefore, the order under appeal cannot be sustained.
5. However, we find from the order that the court below has taken steps to adequately safeguard the interest of both the parties inasmuch as the claim of the respondent as per Annexure 6, annexed with the affidavit, was to the tune of Rs. 4,11,818/- and that the amount has been directed by the court to be deposited in the shape of fixed deposit by the plaintiff-respondent in the fixed deposit receipts duly endorsed in the name of the court so that it may be available to be paid to the party succeeding at the time of the final disposal of the suit. This will adequately safeguard the interest of both the parties. The main requirement of the respondent is that the goods, which had been delivered to the appellants for transportation should be released and be given in the custody of the plaintiff-respondent forthwith. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order passed by the trial court and direct that in view of the deposit of the amount as aforesaid by the plaintiff-respondent, the appellants will deliver the goods to the plaintiff-respondent within a period of one week of this order. We further direct that the appellants shall file a reply to the interim injunction application within a period of one week from today, whereafter the learned trial court will dispose of the injunction matter within two weeks. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that one of them will seek any adjournment in the court below and will co-operate with the Court in having the injunction matter decided within a period of two weeks. The money already deposited by the plaintiff-respondent in the shape of fixed deposit receipts shall remain in deposit till the disposal of the injunction application by the trial court after hearing both the parties.
6. Before parting with this appeal, it must be stressed that the subordinate courts are granting temporary injunction without having any regard to the mandatory provisions of R. 3 of O. 39, C.P.C It is of utmost importance to note that an ex parte order of injunction is an exception, the general rule being that order be passed only after hearing both the parties.
7. It is only in rare cases where the court finds that object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay, the court can issue an injunction ex parte but that too only after recording reasons therefor. Ex parte injunction is not routine matter and it must be borne in mind by the courts below.
8. With the observations made above, the appeal is disposed of finally. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the parties on payment of requisite charge within three days.
9. Appeal allowed.
Alert