Skip to content


P. Chidambaram, General Secretary, Gujarat Mazoor Panchayat and ors. Vs. Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Narol, Ahmedabad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpl. Civil Appln. No. 4856 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1986Guj17; (1985)1GLR353
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 39, Rule 3
AppellantP. Chidambaram, General Secretary, Gujarat Mazoor Panchayat and ors.
RespondentJoint Civil Judge (J.D.), Narol, Ahmedabad and ors.
Advocates: M.C. Bhatt, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party. having understood the facts and the situation, particularly the background of which this court would be well aware by reason of the earlier resort to, this court, we doubt the propriety of an injunction order of this omnibus nature passed without resort to r. what the consequences of an ex parte order would be and what would be the consequences of not passing such an ex parte order but waiting for the other side to appear must be weighed by the court and only in exceptional cases where the court finds for very good reasons, which it would be advisable for the court to record in..........to the court which passed the ad interim order efficacious.2. the order passed by the learned civil judge (junior division), narol, reads thus: -'you, the defendants and defendant 3's members be restrained by this hon'ble court by committing, calling or otherwise gathering the people and making any provocative or inflammatory speech and from gathering or calling a meeting and taking law in your hands and throwing stones and brick-bats and such other materials so as to cause damage to the properties of the plaintiff by remaining present singly or jointly within 1000 yards of the plaintiff company premises and also from entering into the plaintiffs premises unlawfully and also from committing violence, arson or such other activities which may result into damages to the properties of.....
Judgment:

P.S. Poti, C.J.

1. However we may be tempted to treat this petition as a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution and to interfere with an order which prima facie we feel calls for notice by this Court, we are not doing this only because we do not want to set up a precedent of interference by this Court with an order passed by a Civil Court ex parte, which order could be sought to be vacated by filing objections before the same Court. No doubt, it is pointed out that the peculiar history of this case and particularly the directions given by this Court earlier as also the urgency of finally determining the injunction matter calls for the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution. But while declining to give any relief under Art. 227 at the moment, we could very well issue directions which would make the resort by the petitioners to the Court which passed the ad interim order efficacious.

2. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narol, reads thus: -

'You, the defendants and defendant 3's members be restrained by this Hon'ble Court by committing, calling or otherwise gathering the people and making any provocative or inflammatory speech and from gathering or calling a meeting and taking law in your hands and throwing stones and brick-bats and such other materials so as to cause damage to the properties of the plaintiff by remaining present singly or jointly within 1000 yards of the plaintiff company premises and also from entering into the plaintiffs premises unlawfully and also from committing violence, arson or such other activities which may result into damages to the properties of the plaintiff up to 28-9-1984.'

3. Rule 3 of 0. 39of the Civil P.C. is a very wholesome provision intended to achieve a laudable purpose. Admittedly injunctions by the Courts are not to be a matter of course and even while the injunctions operate only for a short time, i.e. until the other side appears and contests the matter, by that time damage would have been done and in some cases that be irreparable. There is also the fact that to-day the Courts are so overworked that even if the Court fixes the date for disposing of the injunction application after hearing the parties, it may not be able to do so in time. If that be so at the stage of granting an ex parte injunction, it should not act casually and in a caliper fashion but pass orders only after adverting to all the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Rule 31 of 0. 39 provides that the Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party. Having understood the facts and the situation, particularly the background of which this Court would be well aware by reason of the earlier resort to, this Court, we doubt the propriety of an injunction order of this omnibus nature passed without resort to R. 3. It would be only fair that the Court should act in accordance with the rule. We do not want to enter into the merits of the case but we must impress upon the Court that rendering justice calls for proper restraint in the powers conferred upon a Court and to exercise its power only when such exercise is called for. What the consequences of an ex parte order would be and what would be the consequences of not passing such an ex parte order but waiting for the other side to appear must be weighed by the Court and only in exceptional cases where the Court finds for very good reasons, which it would be advisable for the Court to record in its order, it would be justified in passing an ad interim ex parte order of such a grave nature as that in this case.

5. It is absolutely necessary that the matter should have priority of attention by the lower Court. The Court should acquaint itself with the facts and law as to how far a Court is to interfere in a matter concerning dispute between a workman and management and as to how far it should exercise itself in the matter of restraining the workmen in furtherance of their demands.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that they will be filing their objections before the Civil Judge (J. D.), Narol, in the course of the day. In that event, the case shall be posted peremptorily on 21-9-84. We make it clear that the plaintiffs must necessarily be ready by tomorrow to argue for the plaintiffs should have been ready to meet the case of the opponents even when they filed the suit. Therefore, in a matter of this nature, prayer for adjournment would not be fair. We are exercising self restraint in not invoking our power under Art. 227 of the Constitution. We are directing that giving priority to this matter, this matter shall be heard tomorrow as the first case in the list by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and disposed of by order tomorrow. A copy of this order shall issue forthwith to the Civil Judge (J. D.), Narol.

7. A copy of the order for service on the counsel for the plaintiffs in that suit and the writ to be served on the Court will be handed over to the petitioner. The writ will be issued forthwith.

8. In the circumstances, the petitioners' counsel submits that the petition is withdrawn. Dismissed as withdrawn.

9. Petition dismissed as withdrawn.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //