MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 17th December, 1987 an ex parte injunction was granted against the defendant A Local Commissioner was also appointed, inter alia, for preparing an inventory of the goods in possession of the defendant. It was further directed that the plaintiff will comply with the provisions ofOrder39Rule3C.P.C.

(2.) The defendant has moved the present application contending that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 have not been complied with by the plaintiff and as such this Court should vacate the order dated 17th December, 1987 granting an ex parte ad interim injunction.

(3.) Order 39 Rule 3 provides that before granting an injunction, notice should be issued of the application to the opposite party. It further provides that such a notice need not be issued where it appears to the Court that the granting of an injunction would be defeated by the dealy. The proviso to rule 3, which was inserted by amendment with effect from 1st February, 1977, provides that when an ex parte injunction is proposed to be issued, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion in doing so and the Court should also require the applicant 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 (1) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; (2) a copy of the plaint; and (3) copies of documents on which injunction lies. Clause (b) of the provisio further requires that on the date on which such an injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit slating that copies of the documents mentioned above have been so delivered or sent should be filed.