SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Time City Infrastructure And Housing Limited Lucknow – Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21747 of 2025
Decided On : 11-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of property ownership dispute. (Para 1) |
| 2. challenge to the trial court's order. (Para 2) |
| 3. advocacy by the petitioner. (Para 3) |
| 4. requirements for granting ex parte injunction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. trial court to decide injunction on merits. (Para 8) |
| 6. disposal of the special leave petition. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Bench Lucknow) dated 24-7-2025 in Writ- C No.6701/2025 by which the petition filed by the respondents – herein (original defendants) came to be allowed thereby set asiding the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) granting ex parte injunction as prayed for by the petitioner – herein in Civil Suit No.447/2025. The Trial Court passed the following order dated 9-5-2025 while granting ex parte injunction in favour of the petitioner – herein (original plaintiff):-
“Heard on the arguments of the Ld.Counsel for the plaintiff on the Application C-6 with affidavit C-7 of the plaintiff on ad interim Injunction.
The plaintiff has filed the Extract of Khatoni of Year 1425- 1430 C-11/1 Ta 10 at serial no.C-10, Certified copy of Agreement to Sell Dated.21.03.2015 at serial no. C-12/1 Ta 11, Certified Copy of the Sale Deed Dated 30.04.2025 at serial no. C-13/1 Ta 11 in support of their prayer in the suit.
It is the stated by the Counsel for the plaintiff that on 21.06.2015, after the full and final payment Rs.3,60,12,782/- (Rupees Three Crores Sixty Lakhs Twelve Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Two Only) to the defendant No.1 as Sale Consideration, the defendant No.1 had handed over the peaceful physical possession of the land to the plaintiff. After the physical possession of the Suit Land, the plaintiff had merged the said plot of land in its adjoining plotting sites and invested huge funds in terms of lacs and lacs of rupees to and Eighty-Two Only) to the defendant No.1 as Sale Consideration, the defendant No.1 had handed over the peaceful physical possession of the land to the plaintiff. After the physical possession of the Suit Land, the plaintiff had merged the said plot of land in its adjoining plotting sites and invested huge funds in terms of lacs and lacs of rupees to develop that suit land into plotting for sale. The plaintiff company had also developed the suit land with good roads and also constructed 02(two) offices on the same. The plaintiff company had been in with continuous physical possession of the said suit property till date.
The plaintiff has prayed for specific relief against the defendants on the suit property/land bearing Gata/Land No.452/1 Rakba 0.057 Hectre, Gata/Land No.607 Rakba 0.300 Hectre, Gata/Land No.615 Rakba 0.162 Hectre, Gata/Land No.616 Rakba 0.162 Hectre Gata/Land No.634 Rakba 0.304 Hectre with a Total Area of 5 Kita Rakba 0.985 Hectre, which is situated at Village-Kurouli, Pargana & Tehsil-Nawabganj, Dist- Barbanki. Thus, prima facie the case is made out by the plaintiff. In the light of the facts and circumstances and for the protection of the suit property/land and in order to prevent further litigation, Parties should maintain the status quo in the interest of justice.
ORDER
Parties are directed to maintain status quo on the title and possession of the suit property/ land bearing Gata/Land No.452/1 Rakba 0.057 Hectre, Gata/Land No.607 Rakba 0.300 Hectre, Gata/Land No.615 Rakba 0.162 Hectre, Gata/Land No.616 Rakba 0.162 Hectre Gata/Land No.634 Rakba 0.304 Hectre with a Total Area of 5 Kita Rakba 0.985 Hectre, which is situated at Village-Kurouli, Pargana Tehsil-Nawabganj, Dist- Barbanki. till the next date of hearing and parties are also directed not to sell the suit property/land till the next date of hearing.
Put up for further proceedings on 29.05.2025 for the disposal of Application No. C-6, Accordingly notice be issued to the defendants for the next date of hearing. This order will be binding on the parties those who are made parties in the present suit. This
AI
Ex parte injunctions must comply with mandatory procedural requirements, including giving notice to the opposing party. Non-compliance mandates vacating the injunction.
Injunctions without notice require rigorous justification and must adhere to procedural safeguards, emphasizing the necessity of recording reasons for ex parte orders to uphold fair judicial process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that orders regarding injunctions fall under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure and are appealable. Additionally, the judg....
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements for granting ex parte injunctions is not optional but mandatory, and failure to adhere to these requirements invalidates the injunct....
Non-compliance with the conditions of an ex parte injunction under Order 39, Rule 3 CPC renders the injunction invalid, necessitating prompt judicial action.
Non-compliance with statutory requirements for an ex parte injunction renders the order invalid, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural mandates.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.