K.C.Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Order XXXIX, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil procedure against the judgment and order of the I/c Civil Judge, Unnao, granting injunction against the defendants. Order dated February 18, which has been impugned by means of this appeal, read as under: Invite objections by March 17, 1989. Till then the defendants are restrained from transferring vehicles and their permits mentioned in Schedule A, B and C in their names or in the name of any other person. The possession of the aforesaid vehicles shall not be delivered to any other person without permission of the Court. Counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri H. S. Sahai, urged that the learned Civil Judge should not have granted the injunctions without providing an opportunity to the appellant. For the submission made, he placed reliance on Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XXXIX, Rule 3 provides: The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting injunctions would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the opposite party.
(2.) THE proviso appended to the said Order XXXIX, Rule 3 is as under: Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving 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, and require the applicant - - (a) 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 or 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. From the reading of the Rule 3, it appears that where the court is of the view that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, it has to record reasons and then can grant the injunction without waiting for service on the defendants. In this case, the learned Civil Judge Incharge appears to me to have been in undue haste. He has not recorded any reasons as to why injunctions were required to be given immediately without giving any opportunity of hearing to the defendants.
(3.) SRI A. Mannan counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondents, attempted to support the order on merits while saying that the defendant -appellant, and other arrayed on her side, were likely to transfer the vehicles and on account of which injunction was issued by the Civil Judge on being satisfied that immediate action was required to be taken in that regard. Counsel urged that he had filed several documents in the court below showing urgency of the matter. Since Order XXXIX, Rule 3 required giving of reasons by the court, it was incumbent to do so before granting injunction in the absence of the defendant. The fact that the plaintiffs had filed some papers would not fulfil the compliance of the said provision. The learned Civil Judge has bye -passed the mandatory provision of Order XXXIX, Rule 3 by not recording the reasons required.;