The trial Court must provide a reasoned order on temporary injunction applications, particularly when delay could cause irreparable harm to a party's reputation or rights.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff and learned counsel for respondents-defendants.

2. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who has instituted a suit in O.S.No.7977/2025 against the respondents-defendants before the trial Court seeking the following reliefs:

"a. To Grant permanent injunction against Defendants, restraining the defendants in any manner either by themselves or through any other ways from telecasting/broadcasting/publishing the fake news about the plaintiff.

b. Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from propagating and defendants from telecasting, Publishing, the printed article, Breaking news/news item, Program/debates in any manner in their TV Channel, Web Portal, and social media thereby causing damage to the integrity and reputation of the plaintiff’s without their being any basis actuated with mala-fides.

c. Grant any such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought for an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, from transient, publishing, distributing, sharing any materials, transient in any media, newspaper, local cable, operated channels, interest, website, social media etc., or in any manner whatsoever their officials, agents, servants, henchmen, attorney etc., till pending disposal of the suit. The affidavit was also annexed to the said application.

5. The trial Court, after hearing the petitioner-plaintiff on the application for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction filed under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, issued an emergent notice on I.A.No.1 and suit summons to the defendants returnable by 07.01.2026. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff is the Managing Director of Mysuru Fruit Product Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The respondents- defendants are media organisations engaged in print, electronic and digital news dissemination. He further contended that the First Information Report has been registered in crime No.342/2025 before Hebbagodi Police Station against the petitioner-plaintiff based on false and baseless allegations regarding creation of forged General Power of Attorney and another false First Information Report has also been registered in crime No.227/2025 before Kormanagal Police Station against the petitioner-plaintiff.

7. Being aggrieved by the said crime No.227/2025, the plaintiff has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29396/2025 before this Court for grant of stay. However, this Court vide its order dated 05.11.2025 has stayed further proceedings/investigation arising out of Crime No.227/2025 of Koramangala Police Station, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.1.

8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for plaintiff that when the proceedings and investigation arising out of the crime No.227/2025 have been stayed by this Court, the apprehension of the defendants, who are threatening to publish news articles and reports regarding the FIR, is that it would be prejudicial to the interest and reputation of the plaintiff without due verification or final outcome of investigation, which would cause grave injustice, irreparable harm, damage to the person, defaming the plaintiff in his professional standing in the Society.

9. It is further