- (1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order No. 3 dated May 12, 2011 passed by the learned District Judge-in-Charge, 24-Parganas (South) at Alipore in Misc. Appeal No.219 of 2011, filed at the instance of the plaintiff in T.S. No.1214 of 2011 and pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore.
(2.) By the impugned order, while issuing notice requiring the respondent No. 1 to show-cause within 10 days of service as to why it shall not be restrained as prayed for, ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted till June 9, 2011 restraining the respondent No. 1 in the appeal and/or its officers/agents "from opening tender dated 25.02.2011 and/or giving its effect/further effect without incorporating LCD Multimedia Projector along with DLP Branch." The appellant was directed to comply with provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decisions the Supreme Court in (Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors, 1993 3 SCC 161) and (Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, 1994 4 SCC 225) are authorities delineating the principles for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, yet, the learned Judge of the appellate Court proceeded to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction by recording as follows:- "On perusal of the petition and annexed documents, I am of the view that a strong prima facie case has been made out and that there is urgency in the matter and that delay is likely to defeat the object for which the injunction has been prayed for". This is nothing but reproduction of the words of the statute and may be used as a rubber stamp whenever and wherever the learned Judge considers it necessary to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction. The order impugned is in the teeth of the decisions referred to above and warrants to be set aside without much argument. I was inclined to set aside the order impugned and direct the learned Judge of the appellate Court to hear the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellant afresh without expressing any opinion on the merits of its claim. However, Mr. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the plaintiff/appellant (opposite party No. 1 herein) submitted that for the failure of the learned Judge to record reasons and to conduct himself properly, the plaintiff ought not to suffer and that it ought to be considered whether on the facts pleaded in the plaint as well as the application for temporary injunction, any case for grant of the prayers made in the application had been set up or not.
(3.) Accepting Mr. Chatterjee's submission, the parties were heard at length. I propose to consider whether the order of injunction granted by the learned Judge of the appellate Court ought to be continued or not. I may place on record that the injunction granted by the impugned order was operative till June 9, 2011 and it was extended on that date for a further period of a month. Mr. Chatterjee had contended that since the impugned order merged in the order dated June 9, 2011 and there being no challenge to the subsequent order, the application is not maintainable.;