Effect of noncompliance of r3 of o39

jains (Querist) 25 November 2015 This query is : Resolved
The petitioner who got a temporary order of injunction sent only the petition copy instead of sending all copies of plaint, petition, documents. Is it mandatory to send all record copies and what is the effect of improper compliance o39r3.?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

alexander (Expert) 26 November 2015
You are talking,I presume. about the Ex-parte Injunction which the Plaintiff obtains from the court to thwart possible misuse/ abuse of the property involved. The plaintiff is mandated to send a copy of the Petition seeking the Injunction along with the complete copy of the Plaint to the defendant and within 24 hours, I think,the Plaintiff is expected to inform the Court that he has so informed you.

If he has not done it then it may be considered the abuse of the statute/ court.
The Court will hear the case before proceeding on material issues and then you could put forward your objections. This is normally done within 30 days of filing the suit but may ,as practically seen, extend to 3 months. You could demolish his case PL ALSO SEE SEC 95 of the CPC which entitles the Defendant to claim damages up to Rs FIFTY thousand from the Plaintiff for obtaining the Injunction fraudulently / falsely
"Pl consult your local lawyer

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 27 November 2015
O 39 rule 3:

3. Before granting injunction, court to direct notice to opposite party.- 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 for the same to be given to the opposite party:

Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant—

(a) 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—

(i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application;

(ii) a copy of the plaint; and

(iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and

(b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or Sent.

The Supreme Court in S.B.L. Ltd. vs Himalaya Drug Co. has examined whether the provision of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are mandatory or directory in nature. -

36. We are of the opinion that if the court is satisfied of non-compliance by the applicant with the provisions contained in the proviso then on being so satisfied the court which was persuaded to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction confiding in the applicant that having been shown indulgence by the court he would comply with the requirements of the proviso, it would simply vacate the ex parte order of injunction without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case leaving it open to the parties to have a hearing on the grant or otherwise on the order of injunction but bi-part only. The applicant would be told that by this conduct (mis-conduct to be more appropriate) he has deprived the opponent of an opportunity of having an early or urgent hearing on merits and, therefore, the ex parte order of injunction cannot be allowed to operate any more.