- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Silver Granites, Petitioner v. Murugan And Others,
Factual and Procedural Background
The revision petition was filed by the second defendant in O.S No. 1368 of 1994 challenging an injunction order passed by the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in I.A No. 727 of 1994. Respondents 1 to 4 had initiated suit O.S No. 1368 of 1994 seeking a declaration that the permission granted to the petitioner by the Government was null, void, and unenforceable, along with an injunction restraining quarrying and transportation of quarried stones from the suit property. An interim injunction was granted by the Subordinate Judge but was challenged for not complying with Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The suit is one among multiple related suits involving the same property, and there were issues regarding jurisdiction and transfer of suits between courts. The court exercised suo motu powers to transfer O.S No. 1368 of 1994 and the interlocutory application to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, for consolidated trial and disposal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Third Additional Subordinate Judge erred in granting an interim injunction without complying with the mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Whether the suit and interlocutory application should be transferred to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, for consolidated trial along with related suits.
- Whether the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to extend the interim injunction after the suit had been transferred to another court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The suit O.S No. 1368 of 1994 is the third in a series of suits concerning the same property.
- Other suits (O.S Nos. 483 of 1994 and 1180 of 1994) claimed lessee and sub-lessee status under the respondents with similar prayers for injunction.
- The Third Additional Subordinate Judge extended an injunction in O.S 1180 of 1994 despite an order transferring that suit to the Principal Subordinate Judge, which was beyond his jurisdiction.
Respondents' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which require that when an injunction is granted without notice to the opposite party, the application must be disposed of within thirty days or reasons recorded for any delay. The Third Additional Subordinate Judge failed to comply with this requirement by extending the injunction beyond the stipulated period and by posting the matter for a later date. The court also noted non-compliance with an administrative circular mandating strict adherence to this rule by subordinate judiciary. Furthermore, the court found that the Third Additional Subordinate Judge lacked jurisdiction to extend the injunction after the suits were transferred to another court. Considering the multiplicity of suits concerning the same property pending before the Principal Subordinate Judge, the court exercised suo motu powers under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 24 of the CPC to transfer the suit and interlocutory application for consolidated disposal. The court directed the Principal Subordinate Judge to dispose of the interlocutory application within a specified timeframe, exempting him from certain procedural restrictions to facilitate timely disposal.
Holding and Implications
The Civil Revision Petition was allowed by transferring the suit O.S No. 1368 of 1994 and the interlocutory application I.A No. 727 of 1994 to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, for trial and disposal along with related suits.
The decision ensures compliance with procedural mandates under Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of the CPC and administrative directives, preventing jurisdictional overreach by subordinate courts. The transfer promotes judicial efficiency by consolidating related suits concerning the same property before a single court. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily addresses procedural correctness and court jurisdiction in the context of interim injunctions.
The revision petition is filed by the second defendant in O.S No. 1368 of 1994 against an order of injunction passed by the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in I.A No. 727 of 1994. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the suit O.S No. 1368 of 1994 for a declaration that the permission granted to the petitioner herein in Rec. No. 13 04/93 dated 1-11-1993 by the Government is null, void and unenforceable and for an injunction restraining the petitioner herein from in any manner quarrying or transporting the quarried stones from the suit property. They filed IA No. 727 of 1994 for interim injunction till the disposal of the suit. That application was called in Court on 23.12.1994 and the Third Additional Subordinate Judge recorded his reasons for granting an interim order of injunction. However, he overlooked the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure and posted the matter for notice and return to 2.2.1995 and granted interim injunction till that date. Under Rule 3A of Order XXXIX, C.P.C, where an injunction is granted by any Court without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted and where it is unable to do so, it shall record its reasons for such inability.
2. 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.
3. It is brought to my notice by learned counsel for the petitioner that this suit O.S No. 1368 of 1994 is a third suit in a series of Suits filed by the persons claiming under the respondents. According to him, one suit was filed by one Dhanapal as O.S No. 483 of 1994 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in which he claimed to be a lessee under respondents 1 to 4 and prayed for injunction against the petitioner. Another suit O.S No. 1180 of 1994 is filed by one Palanisamy, who claimed to be a sub-lessee under the said Dhanapal with a similar prayer for injunction against the petitioner. Yet another suit was filed by the petitioner herein in O.S 540 of 1994 on the file of the third Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The two suits O.S Nos. 540 of 1994 and 1180 of 1994 which were pending on the file of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge were transferred to the file of the Principal Subordinate judge, Madurai by an order of the District Judge on 1-12-1994. In spite of that order having been brought to the notice of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge, he proceeded to extend the period of injunction already granted by him in O.S 1180 of 1994 to a further date. That order of injunction was challenged before me in C.R.P 3666 of 1994. Though I dismissed the C.R.P taking into consideration the futility of the service of notice to the respondents and getting them to this Court, at the same time observed that the Third Additional Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to pass an order extending the interim order of injunction in view of the fact that there was already an order of transfer of the suit to the file of another Court. I had also stated that in the normal course, I would have set aside the order but for the fact that such a course would not be serving the purpose of the party.
4. Now, it is not in dispute that the three suits relating to the same property are already pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge with the numbers O.S Nos. 483, 540 and 1180 of 1994.
5. The present suit is filed by respondents 1 to 4 who claim to be the owners and under whom the plaintiff in O.S Nos. 483 of 1994 claimed to be a lessee. The interests of justice require that this suit is also transferred to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge and disposed of by him with the other three suits pending already before him counsel on both sides have agreed to that course. In those circumstances, I exercise my suo motu power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and transfer the suit O.S No. 1368 of 1994 to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai to be tried along with O.S Nos. 483, 540 and 1180 of 1994 on his file.
6. The interlocutory application out of which this Revision arises Viz., I.A No. 727 of 1994 is also transferred to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai to be disposed of by him after hearing both sides. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai shall dispose of the said application on or before 25.1.1995 For that purpose he is exempted from obeying the administrative circular of this Court directing the hearing of the interlocutory applications on Fridays only. He can post it to any date before 24th January, 1995 and after hearing pass orders on or before 25-1-1995 and report to this Court. If for any reason the application is not disposed of by 25.1.1995, the Principal Subordinate Judge may consider whether the order of interim injunction should be continued in the face of Order XXXIX, Rule 3A, C.P.C
7. If for any reason the copy of this order is not officially communicated by this Court to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in time, the learned Subordinate Judge can act upon the steno copies which may be produced by either of the parties, which will bear the seal of this Court and proceed to comply with the same.
8. The Civil Revision Petition ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
ALS\RV
Alert