You are on page 1of 1

Andhra High Court

Andhra High Court


Nikesh vs Smt. Malathi Bai And Ors. on 9 August, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996 (4) ALT 483
Author: K Siddappa
Bench: K Siddappa
ORDER
K.B. Siddappa, J.
1. This revision is filed against the order passed in LA. No. 1084 of 1988 in LA. No. 484 of 1988 in O.S. No.
2789 of 1988 on the file of the Sixth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents herein are
the plaintiffs. They obtained ex parte injunction against the petitioner herein. The case of the petitioner is that
after obtaining the ex parte injunction they have not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Order 39
Rule 3 C.P.C. Therefore the injunction granted should be vacated. This plea was negatived by the lower
Court.
2. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision is filed.
3. When the expatte injunction is granted, the condition laid down in proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 C .P.C.
has to be strictly complied with. The parry obtaining the injunction is required to deliver to the opposite party
or to send to him by Registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a
copy of the application for injunction together with-
(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application;
(ii) a copy of the plaint and,
(iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies and;
(b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an
affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent
4. In this case the documents were sent by registered post. However, the petitioner herein did not open the
cover. That was produced before the Court. The learned Munsif, himself, opened the cover and found no
documents. There were only suit summons. Notice was also not there. Copy of the injunction order was also
not found. However, the learned Munsif took into consideration the memo filed on 10-8-1988 in LA. No. 484
of 1988, in which the petitioner herein admitted that, they have received copies of affidavit, petition etc. In my
opinion this is not a strict compliance of proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 C.P.C. All the documents mentioned in
the proviso should either be served personally or by registered post. The registered cover did not contain all
these documents. Certainly there is no compliance with the mandatory provisions.
5. Hence, the injunction granted is vacated. Consequently, the revision is allowed. No costs.
6. I direct the lower Court to dispose of the suit before 29th November 1996.
Nikesh vs Smt. Malathi Bai And Ors. on 9 August, 1996
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/874573/ 1