Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Manjula Devi A., D/o. K.S. Ashok – Appellant
Versus
Bhanuprakash Aradhya, S/o. Bhujanga Bhushan Aradhya – Respondent
ORDER :
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Heard learned counsel Sri.Umesh.S, on behalf of learned counsel Sri.Shivakumar.V for the petitioner, and learned counsel Sri.Paramesh Aradhya for the respondent.
2. At the stage when the matter is being argued, learned counsel Sri.Paramesh Aradhya states that he wants to retire from the case for want of instructions from the respondent /defendant.
3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 on IA.No. 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in OS No. 97/2025.
4. The parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial court as plaintiff and defendant.
5. Plaintiff is before this court. He has filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in IA. No.2 seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession, lawful physical possession, enjoyment of the suit schedule property against the defendants, his henchmen, or agents till dis
Trial courts must evaluate and provide reasoning for injunction applications based on urgency and merits before requiring notice to the other party, as mandated by procedural rules.
Trial courts must evaluate all materials presented in applications for injunctions and provide clear reasoning for their decisions, especially when considering ad-interim orders.
The trial Court must provide reasoned orders when dealing with applications for temporary injunctions, particularly in urgent cases, and should not simply issue mechanical orders without assessment.
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
The failure to record reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction without notice constitutes a jurisdictional error and renders such orders unsustainable.
The trial court must provide reasoning when deciding applications for temporary injunctions and cannot merely issue notices without addressing the merits of the request.
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....
“3A Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
