Order Issuing Notice on Interim Injunction Not Appealable Under Commercial Courts Act: Delhi High Court - 2025-11-13

Procedural Hurdles: Delhi HC Rules 'Notice' Not a Ticket to Appeal

In a significant clarification regarding the appellate process under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that an order simply issuing notice on an application for an interim injunction is not appealable. The ruling effectively halts attempts to challenge routine procedural steps in commercial litigation that do not constitute a final adjudication of rights.

The Backdrop of the Dispute

The case, Perpetual Vision LLP & Anr. v. Vaibhav S. Pingale & Ors. , arose from an order passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court) at Saket. The trial court, rather than granting an ex parte injunction, directed that a notice be issued to the defendants to respond to the application.

Aggrieved by this, the appellants attempted to challenge the order before the High Court, invoking Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. The central legal question for the bench, comprised of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, was whether an order purely issuing notice on an injunction application qualifies as an appealable "judgment" or order under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Battle of Interpretations

Counsel for the appellants contended that by choosing to issue notice instead of granting immediate relief, the trial court had effectively rejected their prayer for ex parte ad interim relief. They argued that such a refusal is substantively a denial of relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC, making it appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).

However, the Court remained unconvinced. The bench noted that the legislature had consciously omitted Order XXXIX Rule 3—which governs the issuance of notice before granting injunctions—from the list of appealable orders found in Order XLIII.

Judicial Reasoning: Upholding Statutory Intent

Justice C. Hari Shankar, delivering the judgment, highlighted that the trial court was acting squarely within the parameters of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC. The court clarified that the legislature intended to prevent "every innocuous case of issuance of notice being made the subject matter of an appeal."

To support its conclusion, the bench relied on established precedents including Sahil Singh Maniktala v. Harpreet Singh and Nisha Raj v. Pratap K. Kaula . These authorities establish that while substantive orders under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 are appealable, simple notices are merely a "step in aid" towards final adjudication and do not carry the finality required for an appeal.

Key Observations

The court's decision was anchored by several critical observations:

• On the nature of procedural orders: "The impugned order neither grants nor rejects the appellant’s application for injunction. It merely issues notice to the opposite party to respond to the application."
• On statutory exclusion: "The Legislature has consciously excepted Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC from Order XLIII Rule 1(r). The intent is obvious, which is to prevent every innocuous case of issuance of notice being made subject matter of an appeal."
• On the threshold of a 'judgment': "Ordering of notice can be nothing more than a step towards obtaining the final adjudication. Even where it might cause prejudice, it cannot be described as a judgment."

A Clear Message for Practitioners

The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The ruling serves as a stern reminder to legal practitioners that not every interim procedural step is open to challenge. By drawing a sharp line between substantive injunction orders and procedural notices, the Court has reinforced the efficiency mandated by the Commercial Courts Act, ensuring that litigation proceeds without unnecessary stalls at the appellate stage.

This judgment solidifies the principle that unless an order directly impacts a party's rights or falls within the narrowly defined list in the CPC, parties must adhere to the trial court process rather than rushing to an appellate forum.