AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 163

2.24 Clause 30 of the Amendment Bill.-

There was considerable controversy about the proposed addition of sub-rule (2) in rule 1 of Order XXXIX. Particularly the members of the Bar felt that the requirement of security as pre-condition for the grant of temporary injunction may adversely affect the interest of indigent and poor plaintiffs like a widow claiming maintenance and asking for temporary injunction against alienation of properties by her husband, plaintiffs suing in forma pauper is but having a good cause, plaintiffs in suits relating to public nuisance and public charities and so on. On the other hand, quite a few participants supported the proposed sub-rule on the ground that it would help discourage plaintiffs asking for temporary injunctions in a flippant or casual manner.

2.24.1. The objectors to the said sub-rule have not apparently given sufficient attention to the wording of the proposed sub-rule (2). The rule requires that the court shall, while granting a temporary injunction of the nature mentioned in the sub-rule, "direct the plaintiff to give security or otherwise as the court thinks fit". In our opinion the sub-rule contains a very salutory principle. However, to make the matter clear it would be appropriate if the words "or otherwise" are substituted by the words "or make such other directions".

A proviso may also be added that the said requirement of giving security or making of other appropriate directions as a condition for granting temporary injunction (of the nature specified in the sub-rule) may be dispensed with in appropriate cases for special reasons to be recorded by the court.



The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys