ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Docket Order dt.20.06.2022 in IA.No.94 of 2022 in OS.No.386 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, as being illegal and perverse. 2. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants, restraining the Respondent/ defendants, their agents, etc., from interfering with the peaceful, physical, possession of the Petitioner/Plaintiff’s suit schedule property. 3. Along with the suit, the petitioner had also filed IA.No.94 of 2022 seeking temporary injunction The Court below by Docket Order dt.13.06.2022 granted ex-parte temporary ad-interim injunction till 20.06.2022 directing the petitioner/plaintiff to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC to cause service of notices to the respondents personally by the said date, failing which there shall not be any extension. On 20.06.2022, the Court below dismissed the application filed for extension of the temporary injunction observing that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order of serving notices to all the respondents. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, this Revision is filed. 5. On this Court taking up this Civil Revision Petition for admission, initially it was submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioner that though they had obtained an exparte ad-interm temporary injunction on 13.06.2022, the conditional order of the Court below was not completed within the stipulated time and notices to the Respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC could only be sent on 15.06.2022. As the mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC were not complied with, this Court vide order dated 04.11.2022 had affirmed the docket order dt 20.06.2022, observing that order of the Court below does not suffer from any irregularity. 6. While so, the counsel for the Petitioner had filed I.A.No.1 of 2022, before this Court seeking review of the order dated 04.11.2022. During the course of hearing, the Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that due to lack of proper instructions he had wrongly stated that the conditional order dt. 13.06.2022 was complied on 15.06.2022. However, by way of filing additional documents it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner had infact sent notices to the Respondents in the suit, within the prescribed time and had also filed compliance affidavit before the Trial Court on 14.06.2022 vide S.R.No.228 of 2022. 13.06.2022 was complied on 15.06.2022. However, by way of filing additional documents it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner had infact sent notices to the Respondents in the suit, within the prescribed time and had also filed compliance affidavit before the Trial Court on 14.06.2022 vide S.R.No.228 of 2022. By taking note of the Compliance Affidavit as filed before the Trial Court this Court vide order dated 02.12.2022 had recalled the order dt. 04.11.2022 and restored the Civil Revision Petition for further consideration. 7. Petitioner contends that the court below erred in dismissing the application for extension of the ad-interim injunction order dt. 13.06.2022 observing that the Petitioner had failed to serve notice on all the respondents even though he had taken out notices to all the respondents by registered post with acknowledgement due on 14.06.2022 well within the time prescribed under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC filed the compliance affidavit into the Court vide S.R.No.228 of 2022. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to Rule 7 of the Civil Rules of Practice contends that as per the said rule he is required to send notices to the Respondents and not its actual delivery on the respondents/defendants and the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application on the ground of non-service of notice. 9. I have taken note of the submissions as made above. 10. The issue for consideration by this Court is, in order to constitute service of notice Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC would dispatch of notice by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due be sufficient or can it be treated as compliance only when there was actual delivery to the addressee. In order to appreciate this issue, it would be appropriate to refer to provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. In order to appreciate this issue, it would be appropriate to refer to provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. Order XXXIX Rule 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 (Emphasis supplied), 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.] It is settled law that when an exparte ad-interim injunction is granted, the Plaintiff has to immediately serve every document filed by him on the basis of which he had obtained the injunction order to the Respondent. Such service of notice along with documents, as seen from above can be affected in two methods viz., (i) by delivering it to the opposite party or (ii) by sending notice through registered post. Under the first method of delivery, there should necessarily be actual delivery on the same day, under the second method it can be understood that delivery on the same day is not possible, the proof of dispatch through registered post to the opposite party by sending notice to the proper address by paying requisite charges, has to be treated as delivery. Further reading of rule 3(b) shows that an affidavit in compliance has to be filed on the very next day stating that the copies have been either delivered or sent. Further reading of rule 3(b) shows that an affidavit in compliance has to be filed on the very next day stating that the copies have been either delivered or sent. The usage of the word ‘sent’ here would fortify the above conclusion that sending by registered post does not include delivery on the same day. 11. Further Rule 7 of the Civil Rules of Practice which deals with service of notice also envisages that when any party is directed by a Court to give notice to the opposite party, such a notice shall be served by the party or his advocate or by sending the same in a registered post with acknowledgment due or by speed post., etc. 12. This would then raise a question as to when compliance under rule 3 is fulfilled for a notice sent through registered post. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Green View Radio Service vs Laxmibai Ramji, (1990) 4 SCC 497 while dealing with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, has held as under: 3. In this connection, we may also point out that the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act require that notice to quit has to be sent either by post to the party or be tendered or delivered personally to such party or to one of his family members or servants at his residence or if such tender or delivery is not practicable, affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. The service is complete when the notice is sent by post.… The Delhi High Court in the case of Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kavita P Lalwani, MANU/DE/2203/2012, while interpreting section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, R/w section 27 of the General Clauses Act, had taken a similar view as under: 14.1 Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that service of a notice shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting the notice by registered post. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act incorporates a presumption of law. A presumption of law with regard to service would arise when a notice to quit under Section 106 is sent by registered post. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act incorporates a presumption of law. A presumption of law with regard to service would arise when a notice to quit under Section 106 is sent by registered post. There is a clear distinction between the presumption that may arise under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and the one arise under Section 27 of the General Clause Act. The former is presumption of fact which the Court may, but is not bound to, raise whereas the latter incorporates a presumption of law and the Court has no option but to raise such a presumption if the conditions of the provision are satisfied… 14.7 In Har Charan Singh v. Shiv Rani, AIR 1981 SC 1284 , the Supreme Court held that a presumption of service can be drawn under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced hereunder:- 7. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 deals with the topic - 'Meaning of service by post' and says that where any Central Act or Regulation authorises or requires any document to be served by post, then unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting it by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. The section thus arises a presumption of due service or proper service if the document sought to be served is sent by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post to the addressee and such presumption is raised irrespective of whether any acknowledgement due is received from the addressee or not... In view of the above principle, as Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC is in pari materia to Section 106(4) of the Transfer of property Act, dispatching notices by the Petitioner to the Respondent/Defendant by the registered post and by filing an affidavit along with postal receipts in proof of the same would amount to sufficient compliance. 13. In view of the above principle, as Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC is in pari materia to Section 106(4) of the Transfer of property Act, dispatching notices by the Petitioner to the Respondent/Defendant by the registered post and by filing an affidavit along with postal receipts in proof of the same would amount to sufficient compliance. 13. In the facts of the present case, the Court below while considering the application for extension of interim order had added the word ‘deliver’ while reading the expression ‘Send by registered post’, thereby enlarging the scope of Order XXXIX Rule 3. The Courts while interpreting a provision should avoid taking an approach which would result in rewriting the words in a statute. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96 held as under: 14. …. It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the Court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The Court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities… 14. Moreover, the presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, being a presumption of law, the Court on having seen that the Petitioner had fulfilled the conditions laid down under Order XXXIX Rule 3 ought not to have come to a conclusion that there was noncompliance of the service of notice on the Respondents. Therefore, the docket order dt. 20.06.2022 cannot be held valid and is liable to be set-aside. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition allowed. The docket order dt. Therefore, the docket order dt. 20.06.2022 cannot be held valid and is liable to be set-aside. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition allowed. The docket order dt. 20.06.2022 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri is set aside. The Court below is directed to consider application seeking extension of interim injunction afresh by taking into consideration the affidavit filed on 14.06.2022 vide S.R.No.228 of 2022. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.