Puro wellness Pvt. Ltd. and others Versus The Indian salt manufacturers Association
Puro wellness Pvt. Ltd. and others
The Indian salt manufacturers Association
Para 5.2: The reading of the above rule makes it clear that, over and above the plaintiff satisfying the court on the three basic parameters :- about his prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour, and it is the plaintiff who would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is refused, as against no irreparable loss to the other side if it is granted, when it comes to grant of ex parte injunction, two additional safeguards are provided in favour of the party against whom the said injunction is granted.
Firstly, it should appear to the trial court that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated, by the time the other side responds to the notice that may be issued by the court, and secondly, the trial court should also record the reasons for its opinion in that regard i.e. the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the said delay.
Para 5.4: If the above quoted reasons, as recorded by the trial court are weighted vis-à-vis the requirement of law, as noted in Para 5.2 above, this court finds that, the trial court has not recorded any reason as to how the object granting the injunction would be defeated, if the court would have waited for the response from the other side. This court therefore finds that the impugned order is thus in breach of Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code and the same is unsustainable.
Para 6: There is an additional factor against the plaintiff. Since the trial court has not recorded the satisfaction, as contemplated in the proviso to the Rule-3, as noted in Para 5.4 above, this court has independently examined, whether in the facts of the present case, does it appear that the object of granting the injunction would have been defeated, by the time the other side would have responded to the notice that was otherwise required to be issued by the trial court.
In this regard it needs to be noted that the plaintiff itself has pleaded that the advertisements by which it was aggrieved, were being aired since few months. If this was the case of the plaintiff as pleaded as the cause of action, it could not be said that the issuance of notice, may be of few days, would have made things irreversible for the plaintiff. For this reason, this court finds that the case on hand did not even warrant dispensation of issuance of notice to the defendants – the present appellants. On this account also, the impugned order needs to be interfered with.