- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 7.9.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Lakhimpur, Kheri in Regular Suit No. 1040 of 2012, by which he has simply mentioned that under the facts and circumstances of the case ex parte injunction order does not appear to be justifiable to be issued without hearing of the defendant.
(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff has come up to this Court by filing the present revision. Obviously in any suit or proceeding a civil court can issue ex parte injunction, if it is proved by affidavit or otherwise that any property, in dispute, in a suit, is in danger of being wasted or damaged. Mere recital by a Court of law that under the facts and circumstances ex parte injunction order cannot be issued without hearing of the defendant, is a blatant violation of the rules of natural justice. Not only reasons, but cogent reasons, must have been recorded by the Court while refusing to grant extraordinary relief as provided in Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. The recording of reasons is an assurance that the Court concerned has consciously applied its mind to the facts on record and the law applicable thereto. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court or the appellate jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justifiably to meet out justice to the aggrieved person.
(3.) Reasons are harbinger between the mind of the trial court and the order itself. From this perspective omission to record reasons vitiates the impugned order or is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi and others, 1991 2 SCC 716, has held as under: Thus, it is settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also exclude the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it effects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to meet out justice to the aggrieved person.;