Ad interim ex parte injunction Should be granted only in exceptional cases

Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249
Civil Suit
Abuse of process of court
Dilatory tactics - Consequent harassment of opposite party, wastage of court's time and benefit to wrongdoer under
existing system of administration of civil litigation - Wrongdoer should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation - Steps for
improving the system - Penal costs, mesne profits and prosecution for perjury - Prolonging trial by creating obstacles by
making frivolous applications or filing forged documents with motive of avoiding dispossession of unauthorised persons
(defendants) from immovable property of plaintiff - Even if wrongdoers are ultimately evicted from property by court after
a long lapse of time, they are not generally adequately punished - Thus there is an inherent gain or incentive for
wrongdoers under present system which requires to be eliminated - Steps laid down for trial courts for improving the
existing system - Court should scrutinise, check and verify pleadings and documents filed by parties immediately after
filing of plaint - It should prepare a complete schedule and fix dates for all stages of suit at time of filing of plaint - It
should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest - It should impose actual,
realistic and proper costs on wrongdoers, grant mesne profits at market rate to affected party and also order prosecution
of wrongdoer for perjury in appropriate cases - Principle of restitution should be fully applied - Ad interim ex parte
injunction should be granted only in exceptional cases and ordinarily court should issue short notice to defendants and
pass appropriate order only after hearing parties concerned - If any party is found to have obtained ex parte injunction on
the basis of false pleadings and forged documents, it should be punished - Court should resolve human or commercial
problems involved in the case in accordance with settled principles of law and justice, 

Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 39 Rr. 1, 2, 3 & 3-A, Or. 20 R. 12 and S. 144 - Ad interim ex parte injunction - Principles for grant of - Should be
granted only in exceptional cases - Ordinarily, court should pass appropriate order only after issuing short notice to
defendant and hearing both parties - While granting ex parte injunction, court should record undertaking from applicant
that he would pay full restitution, mesne profit at market rate and actual costs in the event of dismissal of the application
and suit - If anyone obtains ex parte injunction on false pleadings and forged documents, he should be prosecuted for
perjury and adequately punished - If ex parte injunction is granted, court should dispose of injunction application at the
earliest preferably as soon as defendant appears in court - Ad interim ex parte injunction should be granted only for a
short period i.e. one week or so, 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Ss. 35, 35-A and 35-B - Realistic costs - Determination of - Abuse of process of court - Frivolous and dishonest litigation
causing harassment to opposite party and wastage of court's time - Disgorgement of gains of wrongdoer - Factors to be
considered for determining actual and realistic costs - Prevalent fee structure of lawyers - Other miscellaneous expenses
which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of counter-affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing,
photocopying, court fee, etc. - How long defendants or respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation
in various courts - Relevance of - Costs of Rs 2 lakhs imposed on appellants by Supreme Court in addition to Rs 75,000
costs imposed by High Court,
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Or. 14 R. 2, Or. 7 Rr. 11(b) & (c) and Or. 20 R. 5 - Preliminary issue - When may an issue be treated as a preliminary
issue and be disposed of as such - Stage to which suit had advanced - Relevance of - Issue relating to proper valuation
of suit for purpose of court fees and jurisdiction - If could be treated as a preliminary issue - Said issue, held, was only an
averment made in the plaint and it neither related to jurisdiction of court to entertain suit nor to bar created by any law as
provided in Or. 14 R. 2(2) - Suit had reached stage of final arguments after entire evidence had been led - Treating the
issue as a preliminary issue would be against spirit of Or. 14 R. 2 and Or. 20 R. 5, (2011) 8 SCC 249-D

Or. 14 R. 1 and S. 11 - Issue which may not be framed - Res judicata - Issue on which adjudication in earlier round of
litigation had attained finality - Determination of title of respondent-plaintiff having attained finality in earlier round, issue
regarding adverse possession of appellant-defendants, held, should not have been framed, 
Or. 14 R. 1 - Framing of issues - Duty of court - Framing of issues is a very important stage in civil litigation and it is
bounden duty of court that due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by Presiding Judge while framing
issues,

Print Page