AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Rule 3 of O. 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  • Rule 3 of O. 39 of the Code.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Rule 3 of O. 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  • Rule 3 of O. 39 of the Code.

    Amiya Prosad v. Bejoy Krishna Chakraborty And Others Opposite Parties.

    1. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from offering the seva puja or doing any duty of the shebaits of Sri Sri Iswar Satbhai Kalimatar Ashram. On the plaintiff's prayer, the learned Munsif passed an interim order for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 in that respect. It was stated that the matter was urgent and hence interim order was passed. Against that order, by which the prayer fox ad-interim injunction was allowed, an appeal was preferred. The same was dismissed and hence this revisional application.

    2. Mr. Das Gupta has made a short submission. It has been contended that previously the law was the same in this respect because in urgent matters injunction could not be issued in the defendant's absence without strong and grave reasons. The case of R.H Baddam v. Dhunput Singh in (1897) 1 Cal WN 429 at p. 431 has been cited to show that an injunction cannot be issued in the defendant's absence unless there are strong and grave reasons. This has since been clarified in Rule 3 of O. 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A proviso has been added that where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving a notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay. This mandatory provision has not been complied with. The learned Munsif gave no reasons to bring this case within the exception provided for in the aforesaid Rule 3 of O. 39 of the Code. Moreover, in the facts of the case, there is no reason to hold that in view of the urgency of the matter and specialty when the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay, the interim order of injunction was required to be issued. Since that was not done, an illegal order has been passed. Since the order is illegal, it is not necessary to enter into the merits of the case.

    3. The Rule is made absolute and the impugned order set aside. There will be no order as to costs.

    Order accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Amiya Prosad v. Bejoy Krishna Chakraborty And Others Opposite Parties.
    (Jul 13, 1981)