Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court observed that the ex parte interim injunction granted under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC can be vacated if the mandatory requirements to record reasons for granting ex parte relief and service of documents to the opposite party was not ensued.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard a case in which the Appellant, who had secured an ex-parte interim injunction, challenged the Allahabad High Court's decision overturning the trial court's order. The High Court found that the trial court had failed to record reasons for granting the injunction and that the plaintiff had not ensured delivery of the relevant documents to the defendant.

Proviso of Order 39 CPC Rule 3, puts an obligation upon the plaintiff to serve documents such as copy of the application for injunction together with, a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; a copy of the plaint; and copies of documents on which the applicant relies to the defendant when the ex-parte injunction order was passed without giving notice to the defendant.

“Looking to the scheme of Order 39, CPC it is clear that ordinarily an order of injunction may not be granted ex parte. The opposite party must be issued a notice and heard before an injunction may be granted. Rule 3 carves out an exception in favour of granting an injunction without notice to the opposite party where it appears that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay. Conferment of this privilege on the party seeking an injunction is accompanied by an obligation cast on the court to record reasons for its opinion and an obligation cast on the applicant to comply with the requirements of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso. Both the provisions are mandatory. The applicant gets an injunction without notice but subject to the condition of complying with Clauses (a) and (b) above said.”, the court said.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the Court observed that since there was no compliance with the mandatory provision of Rule 3, it was not inclined to interfere with the impugned findings of the High Court.

“We are of the opinion that if the court is satisfied of noncompliance 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 bipartite only. The applicant would be told that by his conduct 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.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Cause Title: TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOW VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 791

Click here to read/download the order