Lok Pal Singh, J
1. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 07.02.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Haridwar in O.S. No. 33 of 2019 granting ex-parte injunction
in the favour of respondent/plaintiff and order dated 20.04.2019 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar whereby the civil appeal no. 20
of 2019 filed by the petitioner was rejected.
2. Facts, in brief, are that first respondent/plaintiff filed suit for permanent/prohibitory injunction against the petitioners and proforma respondent nos. 2
to 4 being O.S. No. 33 of 2019 praying that the petitioners, their agents, representative, associates etc. be restrained by decree of perpetual injunction
from interfering in the daily affairs of the society and also to restrain them from disposing of any property as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint.
An application, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. , seeking the same relief was filed. Trial court passed an ex-parte order dated 07.02.2019 and
granted temporary injunction in the favour of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 restraining the petitioners from entering and interference in the property in
dispute and also not to destroy the property in dispute.
3. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2019, petitioners preferred miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2019, Balwant Singh Chauhan & anr. vs.
Mahavidhyalaya Sabha Jwalapur & ors. The appellate court by impugned order dated 20.04.2019 dismissed the appeal. Hence, present writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the trial court has passed the ex-parte order without recording its
satisfaction that plaintiff has prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in his favour. He would further submit that unless the court
is convinced that plaintiff has prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the court should not have passed the ex-parte injunction
order. It is further contended that in case of urgency, court may fix early date inviting objection from the defendants, but, the court has not recorded
the reasons and observed that in case ex-parte injunction is not granted, then the purpose of the plaintiff would frustrate and passed ex-parte injunction
order.
6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
Ramrameshwari Devi Ramrameshwari Devi and ors. vs. Nirmala Devi & ors (2011) 8 SCC 249 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph
no. 44 and 52 has held as follows:-
“44. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to
give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex-parte
interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare.
Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the court
has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the
plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.
52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the
existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials.
A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial
judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are
filed.
B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Code. If this
exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing
substantial justice.
C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false
pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties.
In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial
proceedings.
D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while
granting mesne profits.
E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be
issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed.
F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No
one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.
G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice.
H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the
framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice.
I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both
sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.
J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the
written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If
any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed
for the main suit may not be disturbed.â€
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Morgan Stanley Morgan
Stanley Mutual Fund vs. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
36. As a principle, ex parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weigh with the court in the
grant of ex parte injunction are-
(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of improper order against a
party in his absence is prevented;
(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for sometime and in such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application.
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time.
(g) General principles like prima facie case balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the court
8. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents would contend that the property belongs to the institute and same should
be protected.
9. Learned counsel for the parties would contend that interim injunction application is pending consideration since 17.02.2019 before the trial court and
submit that the writ petition may be disposed of with the direction to the trial court to decide the interim injunction application expeditiously.
10. Bare reading of the ex-parte interim injunction, passed by the trial court would reveal that the trial court without recording any findings in regard to
the prima facie case and balance of convenience in the favour of the plaintiff, observed that in case injunction is not granted the purpose of filing the
suit would frustrate. The trial court, at the time of granting ex-parte injunction, firstly should have convinced that plaintiff has proved prima facie case
and balance of convenience, and, in case ex-parte injunction is not granted, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be
compensated in any manner. Unless, the court records its satisfaction in regard to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to
the plaintiff, an ex-parte interim injunction should not have been granted without notice to the other side/opposite party, as the interim injunction may
have a serious consequences on the rights of the opposite party. Without there being, any satisfaction recorded by the trial court, the trial court in hefty
manner has passed the order dated 07.02.2019, directing the petitioner not to enter in the property in dispute, which amounts final relief to the plaintiff
at the stage of interim injunction, which is not legally permissible in law. The appellate court also did not consider the fact that none of the ingredients
of granting ex-parte injunctions were fulfilled by the plaintiff and no satisfaction was recorded by the trial court in granting the ex-parte injunction, and,
in a routine and cryptic manner passed the order, dismissed the appeal. Such ex-parte order in the favour of the plaintiff and affirmed by the appellate
court would definitely cause miscarriage of justice with defendant petitioners. If such order would permit to continue then it would be a failure of
justice.
11. Courts are supposed to record reasons in arriving to a particular conclusion. If reasons are not recorded to arrive to a particular conclusion, the
order cannot said to be a legal document. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal State of Uttaranchal & anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and ors (2011) 8 SCC 670
has held as follows:-
“17. Of late, we have come across several orders which would indicate that some of the judges are averse to decide the disputes when they are
complex or complicated, and would find out ways and means to pass on the burden to their brethren or remand the matters to the lower courts not for
good reasons. Few judges, for quick disposal, and for statistical purposes, get rid of the cases, driving the parties to move representations before some
authority with a direction to that authority to decide the dispute, which the judges should have done. Often, causes of action, which otherwise had
attained finality, resurrect, giving a fresh causes of action. Duty is cast on the judges to give finality to the litigation so that the parties would know
where they stand.
18. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly
events which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so
that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and
by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application
of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided.
19. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper
reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for
the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to
respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the
functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system.â€
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kusuma Devi vs. Sheopati Devi & others 2019 4JT 163 has held that every judicial or/ and quasi-
judicial passed by the Court/Tribunal/Authority concerned, which decides the list between the parties, must be supported with the reasons. The parties
to the lis and so also the appellate/revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a
particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not
possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion.
14. Perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that both the courts below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction within the parameters of law and
the orders impugned in the present writ petition suffer from the aforesaid error. The trial court granted the ex-parte interim injunction without any
discussion, finding and the reason, and the appellate court has also done the same. Thus, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law.
15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial court is patently illegal and serious miscarriage of
justice has been caused to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the trial court and impugned order dated 20.04.2019
passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar are liable to be set aside and need to remand the case to the trial court has occasioned.
16. The impugned orders dated 07.02.2019 and 20.04.2019 are hereby set aside. Writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the trial court to
decide the interim injunction application within two months positively from today, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. However, it is
directed that parties shall maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the property in dispute and shall not create any third party interest till
the decision of interim injunction application.
17. Let certified copy of the order be supplied to the counsel for the petitioners within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.
